Show of HandsShow of Hands

veritas1 June 10th, 2014 6:13pm

Iraq's second largest city Mosul was overrun by militants today, sending the Iraqi army fleeing south as violence threatens to spread to surrounding regions. Does this represent a failure of US foreign policy regarding the pullout from Iraq?

27 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

professorwho Madness and Genius
06/12/14 10:54 pm

This situation is starting to look a lot like Vietnam. Looks like history is repeating itself as usual.

rangeman Lafayette IN.
06/11/14 6:28 pm

Looking for scape goats.

Reply
Vincere Seattle
06/11/14 9:47 pm

Careful, it's best to keep these guys away from goats.

Wes28 CBus
06/11/14 5:41 pm

The failure began in 2003 when we decided to invade.
Our government is broken

Reply
jab87
06/11/14 9:50 am

What did you expect to happen...

jab87
06/13/14 7:13 pm

Your from Cali of course your more than likely against going into Iraq. History shows if you don't deal with a problem initially they will become a greater one later. Iraq would have been much worse in the years to come. Thank God for Bush II and I

Mattwall1
06/13/14 7:32 pm

The main issue here is was Saddam actually a problem. I'm against it because of realpolitik, not humanitarian or peacenik reasons. Saddam was far from a good person. Nor would I say he was necessary a stable person mentally. I would say he kept Iraq

Mattwall1
06/13/14 7:33 pm

Stable, and a counterweight against Iran. Would I ever want to meet him over coffee? Hell no. Do I think Iraq-and the Middle East as a whole-from the perspective of us foreign relations was better off with him IN power-yes. Forgive me, but my state

Mattwall1
06/13/14 7:35 pm

Isn't the issue here. It's that, given the results, we fucked up. At the very least, we should've kept the republican guards alive. Destroying them too was a geopolitical failure. You may think I'm a peacenik or something because I'm from

Mattwall1
06/13/14 7:37 pm

California. I'm not. I'm a realpolitiker. I can't say I LIKE war, but I'm not adverse to it being used in the right time, for the right reasons, and if the right results spring from it. Would have to say the Iraq war failed on all three for me.

Zod Above Pugetropolis
06/11/14 9:05 am

Yes, but no. It represents a failure of US policy getting involved in Iraq in the first place. The most recent capable leader of that country, until we had him killed for reasons still not revealed, would not have allowed that nonsense.

Tariq88 Utah
06/11/14 4:42 am

It was failure by getting involved in the first place.

Reply
madeit Houston Area
06/10/14 8:26 pm

What did we THINK was going to happen?

Reply
Mattwall1
06/10/14 9:27 pm

Honestly? Enough people probably thought, and I'm sure some sill do, that things would sort themselves out and Iraq would become a healthy republic with stable, elected governments, religious and ethnic tolerance, a booming economy, and favorable

Mattwall1
06/10/14 9:27 pm

Ties to the us, no terrorism in Iraq, and that this would spread to other countries in the region. What we have? Honestly, the Iraq war was a geopolitical screwup

Diogenes FreeMeBe
06/10/14 5:10 pm

Not directly. The US failure was going there in the first place!

Reply
rons WOKE is sick
06/10/14 3:52 pm

Not only do they hate us they hate each other more! Sunni against Shiite.

Reply
DavesNotHere where am I
06/10/14 3:43 pm

Everyone knew this would happen when 43 invaded Iraq. We either stay there forever or leave and the country falls to pieces, which personally doesn't bother me. So now they're falling to pieces.

Reply
itsOkay no longer answering here
06/10/14 5:02 pm

Agree. Anybody with eyes could see this from the start.

itsOkay no longer answering here
06/10/14 5:03 pm

Exporting democracy to people who don't want it is a bad idea. I think exporting it at all is arrogant.

DavesNotHere where am I
06/10/14 6:00 pm

Democracy ain't for everyone.

itsOkay no longer answering here
06/10/14 6:17 pm

I'm going to make that into a poll. Do you want credit?

DavesNotHere where am I
06/10/14 6:22 pm

Sure. Appreciate it.

itsOkay no longer answering here
06/10/14 1:05 pm

Yes, of course. We trained them with the goal in mind of being able to maintain control of their own country.

Idc though. Let the country fall to pieces. It's none of our business anymore.

Reply
ScrewU Gone
06/10/14 4:21 pm

You've noticed that everyone who ever trained the Iraqi army said they would never be ready. Lol

timeout Boston Strong
06/10/14 1:02 pm

Not a surprise..I expected it.

No more free rides. You want a democracy. Fight for it yourself.

Reply
skinner Jersey City
06/10/14 12:51 pm

I believe it is inevitable without US support that Iraq will fall apart and destabilize the Middle East. We should have phased out our troops from the region more slowly

Reply
Mattwall1
06/10/14 12:57 pm

Honestly, I'm not sure anything short of keeping troops in Iraq for several decades would've been successful. Honestly I'm not sure anybody hit a dictator like Hussein would even have a shot at keeping Iraq in order. That or MAYBE King Faisal I

jackietheman Just Stop...
06/10/14 3:03 pm

Troops for decades, sounds like JAP And GER.

rons WOKE is sick
06/10/14 3:54 pm

They are Tribes based on two thoughts of Islam. The Sunnis and the shiites hate each other. They been at odds for thousands of years and won't stop now.

Mattwall1
06/10/14 5:27 pm

Jackie-for one thing, we don't even have close to the political will for a long occupation of Iraq like with Japan and Germany. For another, we also had many less troops per Iraqi than per German or Japanese, and we'd never come close to being equal

Mattwall1
06/10/14 5:29 pm

Unless we made an even more unpopular decision and reinstated an active draft. Plus, imagine the cost. For someone that wants as many spending cuts as you do, how can you justify a lengthy and incredibly expensive occupation of Iraq?

jackietheman Just Stop...
06/10/14 9:24 pm

I'm not saying it's a good idea. It sounds bad.

mc88 Cleveland OSU
06/10/14 12:48 pm

I'm glad you keep your polls unbiased.

Reply
cowboy Doors of Perception
06/10/14 12:39 pm

We never should have been there.

Reply
Shazam Scaramouche, OH
06/10/14 12:34 pm

ANYTIME the US foreign policy includes the establishment of a government in that country following military action, it will be a failure. Whether we pullout in 3 years or 3 decades, it will collapse. Why we continue to try is a mystery to me.

Reply
Arkansas123 Neoconservative
06/10/14 12:37 pm

Germany, Japan, and Grenada were failures?

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
06/10/14 1:37 pm

The govs of Germany and Japan were established by multiple countries following WWII. I believe - but haven't looked it up - that the Jap political structure and gov was left in place and only the mil was disbanded. We didn't set up a gov in Grenada

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
06/10/14 1:39 pm

There was a coup that overthrew the elected gov. We removed the perpetrators of the coup, and put the old gov back in power. I believe an election happened within a year (?) i don't know much about Italy, i'll have to look it up.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
06/10/14 2:08 pm

ARK - interesting read. Done under allied forces. Few-to-none that we have tried to do alone have succeeded. If anyone thinks AFG will be different, they're kidding themselves.

jackietheman Just Stop...
06/10/14 3:01 pm

Oh, I'm 80% sure AFG will fail if we stay on this path. Cuba failed, the Philippines IDK about, where else did we try and set up a government?

think4yourself Not a safe space
06/10/14 7:16 pm

South Korea is another success.

jackietheman Just Stop...
06/12/14 5:33 am

So Western Europe went well. Japan went well. South Korea went well. Iraq just has so many different ethnic groups etc and Afghanistan is not going to be a free and stable country soon.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
06/10/14 12:06 pm

We should have left a residual peacekeeping force as we did in Germany, Italy, Japan, and Korea.

Reply
Vincere Seattle
06/10/14 12:02 pm

Iraq can't go on existing as one country. It's very similar to Yugoslavia in the early 90s; too many ethnic and religious groups who hate each other and refuse to cooperate. In the absence of a brutal dictator, they will fight each other until either

Reply
Vincere Seattle
06/10/14 12:02 pm

one is in charge or the nation is effectively divided.

Maynard Londor
06/10/14 12:15 pm

Thank you! I've been trying to tell people this forever! The arbitrary division of nations from the old colonies, I feel, is one of the worst things to happen to the Middle East.

Maynard Londor
06/10/14 12:16 pm

When they divided them, they should have taken ideological affiliations into account. I feel the region would be a lot more stable now.

ScrewU Gone
06/10/14 11:57 am

I can honestly say I knew enough about Iraq in 2002 to predict this outcome. The Kurds are their own nation. The Sunnis were never going to accept majority Shiite leadership, and civil war was always the only possible outcome.

Reply
ScrewU Gone
06/10/14 11:58 am

We should have left that hell hole in 2003. The outcome would have been the same.

MrMilkdud
06/10/14 11:56 am

Sounds like a failure of the Iraqi military to me.
At some point they need to be able to defend their own county.
If they can't, then they don't deserve it.

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
06/10/14 11:51 am

Pointless war, other than eliminating Saddam Hussein from the chairman of OPEC, that war was a waste. You can not democratize a region that wants to be a theocracy. It doesn't work. while some support freedom, the power is held by those who don't.

Reply
Vincere Seattle
06/10/14 11:58 am

I think any one of the groups in Iraq would love to have an independent democracy for themselves, but they don't want to share power with the other groups. The Shi'ites are in charge after years of minority Sunni rule and they aren't prepared to

Vincere Seattle
06/10/14 11:59 am

play nice with their former oppressors. Meanwhile the Kurds don't want anything to do with either of them, they just want greater autonomy or independence from the Arab majority.

NDAmerican Florida
06/10/14 12:06 pm

The Kurds are just screwed and it's not right. The Sunnis led Iraq into the mess, and the Shiites aren't going to give the power back. A democracy though should be run by religion, like I said they want a theocratic nature gov. Our work was a waste.

Vincere Seattle
06/10/14 12:13 pm

Well it's clear that if the country was split each region would elect a moderate Islamist government (similar to the Muslim Brotherhood's early victory in Egypt). Our real waste was trying to set up a power-sharing agreement between groups that

NDAmerican Florida
06/10/14 12:15 pm

I'm not disagreeing with each you, but in the end the government of each region would have theocratic elements In there and we need to understand that.

NDAmerican Florida
06/10/14 12:25 pm

America's government tries to oversimplify our foreign policy.

TeaPartier Dont Tread on Me
06/10/14 11:29 am

Democrats called it pointless. Hahahaha!!! Now what are you saying? We were protecting the people of those nations.

Reply
veritas1 Panda
06/10/14 11:45 am

So you think the US military occupation of Iraq should have continued indefinitely?

political Georgia
06/10/14 11:50 am

I think it would be smart to listen to the commanders in the field. While I supported the end of the Iraqi War, I did not support setting a specific time to withdraw.

EnderWiggin So disillusioned...
06/10/14 11:56 am

Sure.
(Generals look at watches..)
"Hey! Let's pull outta here now. Shouldn't take us more than a couple of hours. Whadda ya say boys?"

TeaPartier Dont Tread on Me
06/10/14 12:10 pm

You wait until the Iraqi people are sound economically, strong militarily, and fully independent, then you slowly back out so they aren't thrust into total control too fast.

veritas1 Panda
06/10/14 12:17 pm

We waited for 9 years and waited for over 4400 US soldiers to die. At what point do you pull out? What if what you're describing doesn't happen? Do you keep waiting?

EnderWiggin So disillusioned...
06/10/14 12:35 pm

(letting Saudi Arabia and Egypt do the exact same as Hussein) Iraq had all of those before we tried to get a better share of the oil revenues. And that was such a roaring success, wasn't it. Now the country is riddled with depleted uranium...

TeaPartier Dont Tread on Me
06/10/14 1:07 pm

You don't wait. You prepare. Prepare people for independence. Then back out, but not all at once.

veritas1 Panda
06/10/14 1:13 pm

We didn't back out all at once. We rebuilt infrastructure, constructed hospitals, trained the Iraqi military. Then we steadily pulled out over 2 years. And still, this happened.

TeaPartier Dont Tread on Me
06/10/14 2:19 pm

Obama moved too fast. Way too fast.

veritas1 Panda
06/10/14 2:34 pm

It was Bush's timeline.

ScrewU Gone
06/10/14 4:27 pm

Truth is that Obama tried to extend the status of forces agreement to allow our troops to stay there longer, but Iraq wanted us out. IMO, it didn't matter. ISI knew we had to leave sometime and simply waited us out.

jvc1133 61535
06/10/14 11:25 am

You can expect a s***storm in the next two years

Reply