Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: In Iraq, the United States has the responsibility to address threats to American interests

Comments

Return To Article
  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    June 22, 2014 12:00 a.m.

    micawber
    "I guess I need to be educated about the risks to U.S. interests. I agree that failed states can be a haven for terrorists, but I'm not sure I see why Iraq is unique in that regard. What other American interests are at stake?"

    Oil. I expect that you own a gas vehicle.

    @Roland Kayser:
    :The U.S. has nowhere near enough power to end the centuries old Sunni/Shiite schism."

    Once that argument is settled, they'll be after America again. Remember the ISIS leader who said: 'I'll seen you in New York'?

    @FatherOfFour:
    "Obama did not set our withdrawal timeline, that was done before he even became president."

    But, he coulda changed it. Just use one of his Executive Orders.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 21, 2014 10:54 p.m.

    @Bob K:
    "Why was it our place to not only go into another country and force out the leader that held it together (bad guy or not)..."

    Because the bad guy was working on acquiring WMDs. He had serin gas and yellowcake uranium.

    "...then assume we should choose their government for them?"

    We were hoping that democracy would take hold... but it didn't. They seem to like Shariah better.

    "Do people with no electricity or water and a dead son start loving the USA and wanting to be like us?"

    What they do want is to fly more planes into our buildings, killing more Americans. Haven't you been paying attention to what the Muslim jihadists have been saying... kill Americans and Jews?

    "And what about the trillions of dollars drained from our country?"

    Don't worry. That's Chinese money.

    "Bush's statement was ignorant."

    That wasn't Bush's statement. It was on a banner on the ship.

    "Obama's was 'trying to make the best of a bad situation and get the heck out of a place we can't fix.'"

    He should have known that it would backfire.

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    June 20, 2014 6:18 a.m.

    Personal opinion

    The Editorial Board has it wrong this time just like they had it wrong last time when we preemptively attacked Iraq.

    They ought to read each and every comment to this article.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 19, 2014 5:18 p.m.

    what are our interests? OIL!!! Why aren't we drilling and becoming oil and energy independent so we don't have to give a second thought to Iraq? Obama!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 18, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    Bush is a genius.

    See, by invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam (who was bluffing on his WMDs) he created anarchy.

    Now that Iraq is a mess, a more extreme government (ISIS) will take over. These guys are even condemned by al-Qaeda for being too extreme. This new government actually will obtain WMDs. So yes, WMDs will be found in Iraq. It was all a matter of timing!

    Thanks Bush!

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 18, 2014 5:52 a.m.

    Brer Rabbit -

    " Vietnam is now our friend in the region as Vietnam tries to get out from under China."

    It's interesting and ironic isn't it?

    When we win a war, our postwar involvement is often lengthy and tremendously expensive.

    We maintain military bases in Germany, Japan, and South Korea; and we have spent TRILLIONS over the years to keep the peace.

    If we had won in Viet Nam, I'm sure that we would be seeing the same scenario.

    But we lost, and "Vietnam is now our friend."

    We lost the war in Vietnam, but we won the peace. And it's not costing us trillions like our victories do.

    You know, I think we may have discovered why Rome fell. They were just too successful at war. And it's maintaining post-war stability that saps an empire of its resources and its relative strength in the long run.

    We should learn from that. And AVOID WAR.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2014 1:39 a.m.

    Years before becoming Vice President, Joe Biden had advocated a plan for Iraq that splits it into Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish states. Obviously we didn't do that but what do we have now? A Sunni uprising against a Shi'a majority while Kurds are trying to gain independence.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    June 17, 2014 10:29 p.m.

    Bush declared "mission accomplished" because HIS mission to fill a bunch of his buddies pockets with tax loot was WAS accomplished.

    Every big setback in Iraq used to correspond with another hike in gas prices. Every yellow alert terrorism status had another 1000 no bid contracts going along with it.

    Mission accomplished indeed. If republicans win in 2016, it will all start over again. Look forward to $6 a gallon gasoline. $8 when they bomb Iran.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 17, 2014 10:12 p.m.

    There you have it folks.

    I can hardly imagine Pres. Thomas S, Monson advocating war.

    Yet, here we have Deseret News Editorial Board doing so.

    For Shame!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 17, 2014 10:04 p.m.

    ‘In our opinion: In Iraq, the United States has the responsibility to address threats to American interests’

    ========

    Agreed.

    And like Captain Moroni & General Mormon -- when Iraq fires missiles into the United States,
    not once, not twice, but showing restrain until the 3rd time -- THEN I will support an attack...

    BTW -- U.S. interests are not banks, oil fields, businesses, war profiteering, or a vast Industrial Military complex.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 17, 2014 9:35 p.m.

    @CHS
    Thanks for your service and your continued fight for "America". This editorial disturbed me and I was grateful that the poster with the most "liked" response was yours. The DN editorial board showed little regard for human life or the complexities of other cultures or the lessons of war.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    June 17, 2014 9:33 p.m.

    Where in the constitution does it say the military needs to be used to obtain corporate interests?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 17, 2014 8:57 p.m.

    Ignore anything and everything the right says right now about Iraq. These are the same clowns who started this mess to begin with.

    Shame on the dnews for not putting a name on their column. Anytime you write an opinion piece promoting war, you should list a name. We the people deserve to know who exactly is pushing us into war.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 17, 2014 8:31 p.m.

    @Jack, who says, "Let's be careful in this and not rush in without a plan to succeed."

    Take a step back. Before you start drafting a plan, you need a goal. We never had a clear one, and we don't have one now. ("Take out Saddam's government and the people will cheer us" was an ignorant delusion, not a realistic goal.)

    There are three major populations in Iraq. We can't help the Kurds too much, because Turkey, our NATO ally, is terrified of their own Kurdish separatists and the last thing they want is Kurdistan on their border.

    We can't help the Sunni militias. Their brutality is unsupportable, plus we'd end up at war with Iran, who are supporting the Shiites.

    And, we can't help the Shiites, who are the government in power, and the majority of the population because THEY DON'T WANT US THERE.

    Plus, we can't simply conquer the whole country and sort it out later. We tried. It doesn't work and it just gets them and the entire Islamic world mad.

    So, if there's no achievable goal, no plan will achieve it.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    June 17, 2014 7:57 p.m.

    @CHS85 - "Boots on the ground" is the phrase everyone in the military uses to mean that if you don't have soldiers on the ground, you don't own it. Air power is transient, "boots on the ground" is more permanent. It doesn't demean the lives of those who wear them.

    @Patriot - conventional forces deter conventional forces, not terrorists. While your concern for the Navy is justified, it doesn't deter non-state bad-guys, like terrorists. More subs and surface ships are needed to deal with piracy and state sponsored aggression.

    I spent 2003-2004 in Tikrit and all over the Sunni Triangle. I mourn for the people we helped and progress we made there, now lost. I have a friend in the ground from an ambush, and more wearing Purple Hearts, but we believed what we did was right. I still do. If we are willing to flush it all away, then I fear for the aftermath and the cost then as opposed to the cost now. Let's be careful in this and not rush in without a plan to succeed.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 17, 2014 6:56 p.m.

    " We do this by NOT jumping into un-winnable wars like Iraq or Afghanastan but projecting an undenialable presence of power to all the bad guys in the world - the message is if you mess with the US you will be reduced to ashes."

    You do realize that theses two statements make no sense at all pasted together?

    Ahhhhhhh, probably not.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 17, 2014 5:23 p.m.

    @patriot

    "What NOT to do in IRAQ: What ever Barack does...."

    There you have it folks.

    President Obama could send in two Divisions of soldiers and the entire Air Force and it would be wrong or he could do nothing and be wrong. Howard Beal (above comment) said it best.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 17, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    What TO do in IRAQ:

    1. Become energy independent here in our country. We have the oil and the technology but not the leadership in the White House or the Senate ..yet. An energy independent America is an America who doesn't need to worry what is going on in the middle east as much if at all. No more wars. No more wasted American blood and tressure. To accomplish item #1 we need a Republican in the White House or at least NOT a Democrat. We also need to get the senate away from Harry Reid.
    2. Rebuild our military - especially our Navy. We need several new battle groups complete with carriers and submarines and cruisers etc... We need to be able to actually be a "Global Force For Good" again. We do this by NOT jumping into un-winnable wars like Iraq or Afghanastan but projecting an undenialable presence of power to all the bad guys in the world - the message is if you mess with the US you will be reduced to ashes. It's called a deterrent or "Peace Through Strength".

    What NOT to do in IRAQ: What ever Barack does....

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 17, 2014 4:43 p.m.

    All my life and before that our government has been too quick to get us into wars. Its like a scourage on this nation.

    Other Nations need to learn to handle their own affairs. The Iraq Shiites should have treated the Sunis better once they got into power. We admonished them to do this. They didn't listen. Now they are paying a price.

    If we go back over there until things are settled, we will never leave. How many more trillions do we need to spend? How many more lives ruined and lives lost?

    If we are to bless this world let us do it through our example. Not by perpetually going off to war.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    June 17, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    Let's get real, it's all about the President. If the President wanted to send troops the GOP would be all over him. He pulled out the troops so it was a mistake according to the GOP.

    The correct position was never to go into there in the first place and the correct decision is not to go there now.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 17, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    @Dragline

    "Utah had the lowest recruitment in the nation during and after the Iraq and Afghan wars. I am not sure we should be calling for the U.S. to return boots to the ground from our safe view in the peanut gallery."

    I agree with everything you say, BUT, we need to get away from the phrase "boots on the ground." We need to say our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and friends. These people are not BOOTS ON THE GROUND but living, breathing, precious souls whose lives are to be valued and not relegated to inanimate objects.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 17, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    "...which makes President Barack Obama’s declaration in 2011 that, on the occasion of the U.S. withdrawal, “We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq,” just as infamous and embarrassing." As the 'mission accomplished' statement? I don't think so. This is a really underwhelming attempt to throw something at President Obama. We left behind a soverign, self reliant Iraq. What they've done with it since then is their fault. What we did with it prior to that, which precipitated this entire mess, well that belongs to you know who.

  • ShaneinSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    “There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against their enemies.” (Ezra Taft Benson, America at the Crossroads, August 30, 1969.)

  • ShaneinSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    This opinion is so sad on so many levels. It exemplifies the attitude of meddling in the affairs of other nations that has messed up so many countries so badly, particularly in the Middle East. Yes, I dare say that US involvement is not always the "blessing" that many would argue it is . . . Rather than putting our own house in order so that we can be a beacon of light, we seem determined to impose our corrupted will on a world that is increasingly tired of US. Religious misrepresentation and the War on Terror are used to stir citizens up to levels of fear that persuade them to support foreign entanglements - just what our Founding Fathers warned against. American Exceptionalism used to be real, now it's just an excuse to preserve our oil-related, dollar hegemony at the cost of real lives.

  • DougB Spanish Fork, UT
    June 17, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    I would love to better understand who writes the foreign policy op-ed's for the Deseret News. There really should be public signatures when the writers are promoting war.

    The alleged justifications here for sending our brave defense forces to intervene, kill, and die in a sovereign nation (that never attacked our nation) could be used to foment war, perpetually, on any spot in the world.

    When we follow the narrow-minded, bad advice in this op-ed we break the golden rule, we violate our own Constitution, we lose trust in the world, and we often make potentially bad situations much, much worse.

    Please, Deseret News, consider finding some voices that are willing to represent something other than the talking points of warmongers to balance out this editorial board.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 17, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    Our problem in Iraq was simple:

    Imagine you and your family are enjoying dinner. Suddenly someone from your block kicks down your door, holds the father at gunpoint, and says they are running the family now. Furthermore, they refuse to leave until you accept them, and their way of life as superior to yours. Also, for fear of retaliation, they will not leave until you are supportive of them, and their actions in destroying your family.

    If you fail to comply, you are seen as an enemy (or terrorist as we call them) and they shoot the father, but the two conditions above still apply.

    I must confess, I would not be very supportive of this.

  • Dragline Orem, UT
    June 17, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    Utah had the lowest recruitment in the nation during and after the Iraq and Afghan wars. I am not sure we should be calling for the U.S. to return boots to the ground from our safe view in the peanut gallery.

  • Ralph West Jordan Taylorsville, UT
    June 17, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    Re: ECR
    After all of our pontificating,ECR Burke Va. in one short sentence says it all! " Whatever is happening there now is not because we left too soon. But it might have something to do with the fact that we went there in the first place."

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 17, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    Joe Biden was right when he urged that Iraq be divided among the three warring factions. Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the southeast, and Shiites in the west.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 17, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    " . . . 'We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq,' just as infamous and embarrassing."

    No, I don't think so. GW's proud "Meeshun Accomplished" boast will resonate throughout the centuries as the most foolish utterance ever made by an American President.

    Besides, the words "sovereign, stable, and self-reliant” was an accurate description, relatively speaking, of Iraq when we left.

    True, that status didn't last long. But that was because the initial plan, as with almost all GW expectations, was unworkable, naive, overly-simplistic, and completely unrealistic.

    “The United States withdrew too early, reacting more to political pressures at home than to the long-term dangers of an Iraq too unstable to protect itself.”

    No, that is incorrect.

    The US was complying with SOFA . . . agreed to by GW Bush on behalf of the United States in 2008. “ It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011” - wikipedia

    And we kept the promise GW made.

    Besides, being there longer would not have helped anyway.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    June 17, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    It's not our problem. We can't police the world. We should just stay out.

  • Brer Rabbit Spanish Fork, UT
    June 17, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    As a two tour Vietnam Veteran, I thought for years after the loss in Vietnam that all was in vain. However, never did I think that it would be worth it to go back after losing over 58 thousand American lives there. The main problem in Vietnam was that we were backing a corrupt government in South Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese were dedicated to re-unification, and our mission there was less defined.

    So our losses in Iraq may also have been in vain, other than getting rid of Saddam. Our losses in Iraq does not seem to me to be a reason to return in support of the corrupt Iraqi government that has systematically removed the Sunni population from government. This appears to bed a domestic fight to me.

    In case you have forgotten, after all of the terrible things that happened in South East Asia after we left, Vietnam is now our friend in the region as Vietnam tries to get out from under China.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    When the American media uses the term "American interests" it is likely that they mean American Business Interests. The America government, according to our own Constitution, has no interest in the religion and religious affairs of foreign nations. And if we the people support the Constitution, we don't either.

    However, in very many cases, religion is simply a tool used by businessmen to enslave and oppress people, and that's where American Business Interests become involved. Americans in foreign business are unhampered by American regulations and morals are thus able to compete in foreign business using all the dirty tricks of criminal capitalism including the use of the U.S. military.

    The Iraq war was started by American businessmen and extended as long as possible by businessmen of the Military/Industrial complex. While we talked a lot about democracy we did nothing to bring it about or to improve the lot of the people.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    "but the mission of establishing a free, peaceful and self-sustaining government there was far from over." That may still the mission in a few idealistic minds, but due to the reality of the situation probably a few hold to that view. Furthermore, do we as a nation, have the right to change the will the people in how that want to govern themselves?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 17, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    I was in Iraq in 2004-2005 as an old gristled Sergeant, then I retired after I returned home. Too many good men and women were killed and permanently maimed while serving in Iraq. The Iraqis hated us and threw rocks at us as we drove through the country. They set IEDs alongside the roads. It was a horrible place to serve, and when we left a year later, nothing had changed. There were far too few of us to maintain order. It seemed like the military was half-committed to winning and didn't expect that some Pepsi cans on the side of the road would cause abject fear in otherwise tough men.

    I saw comrades from my own platoon blown to bits before my very eyes by an IED. It is something I will never forget no matter how hard I try. Their lives were NOT worth it. This editorial trivializes the lives of the men and women and their families who were forever changed by this misguided war. Let them work it out. There is nothing we can do to permanently keep order there. Read their history and you'll understand.

  • apm22 sparks, NV
    June 17, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    Does the DN know that Iraq's borders were drawn up by the British empire? Does the DN news understand that we cannot force people to accept our way of living? Our own people don't even live the way we want people in the middle east to live. Look at all of the violence all around our country. We call them barbarians in the middle east and use that as justification for invading and killing them. It is high time we look ourselves in the mirror and clean our own house before we start throwing stones. Also, this "opinion" piece by the DN is devoid of any rational or logical argument for "finishing the job." What is the justification? What American interests are there in invading Iraq, again? We all know there was no justification in the first place and all we have done is torture and maim that country with our military might. The American people say not to continued unjustified war in the middle east. Only the oligarchy wants these unjustified wars.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    I was waiting for the editorial from the Deseret News that suggested we get back into Iraq. I knew it was coming. This editorial comes within 2 weeks of another editorial that lambasted debt restructuring for struggling college students as too expensive, and not something the U.S. could afford right now.

    Now we have a huge hawkish segment of our country and the DN, wanting to intervene in all kinds of foreign conflicts. With this comes the borrowing and spending of billions of dollars. If pundits, politicians and editorial boards are going to continue hammering fiscal conservatism, at least they could remain consistent! Otherwise, it just appears duplicitous and disingenuous.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    June 17, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    Are you talking about our borders, or just Iraq?

    It's interesting to note that the Deseret News' editorial board has been fully supportive of open borders and amnesty, which clearly create a risk to our national security, as well as our economy. And now after many days of terrorist attacks in Iraq, decide that perhaps there is some national interest in Iraq as well.

    In all such situations, when chaos occurs in other countries, it would be wise for us to get our own house in order first.

    Our nation has given a green light for many years for people to cross into our country without restriction. Just a few days ago, this paper's editorial board had the gall to say that people who are here illegally or want to come into our country illegally are deserving of jobs here. Their opinion was rendered with total disregard for 90 million Americans who are either without jobs or have given up looking.

    Board members smugly hide behind the banner of compassion. However, that compassion is only offered to illegal immigrants, not to American citizens.

    There's no greater treason than to do something good for the wrong reason.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 17, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    Last Saturday's Washington Post had an editorial cartoon by Darrin Bell showing a dike holding back hordes of people with the label "Centuries of Tribalism", no doubt depicting the situation in the Middle East today. There is one sword sticking through the dike and as President Obama is walking away from the dike there stands a suited elephant (The Republican Party) stating "This never would have happened if you'd kept your finger in there".

    This editorial seems to be a first step in blaming President Obama for whatever happens in the coming weeks and months in Iraq. He didn't start the fight and he got us out - as is so often mentioned by my good friend Lost in DC - according to the same timetable that President Bush established. Whatever is happening there now is not because we left too soon. But it might have something to do with the fact that we went there in the first place.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    June 17, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    17 comments and counting and nary a one in support of going back into Iraq. The DN apparently didn't learn the first time. These people have been at war for hundreds of years, and thousands of years before that. We are literally a small blip on their history, and the more we try and go in there and impose our will on them, the more we are going to generate enemies. They will unite only to fight us until they can go back to fighting themselves. Let the terrorists terrorize each other. There is no "stabilizing" the Middle East. It can't be done by any outside force. This is one of those things you just never do, like invading Russia--if the Red Army doesn't get you, the winter will. STAY OUT!

  • Swiss Price, Utah
    June 17, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    It needs to be pointed out that it was the Abraham Lincoln's Mission was Accomplished. If this President was called to task like Bush was, especially over this banner flown by a proud crew that his handlers did not get there in time to have taken down we would not be in the mess we are in world wide.
    Smart doesn't cut it wisdom does. Obama and Nixon are widely regarded as the smart presidents. Wise not so much. If Obama could just channel Eisenhower on the golf course or Truman's The Buck Stops here name plate; I for one would feel much more better about the country's future. As it is I feel like I did after watching Jimmy Carter's Presidency sink into the sunset. I voted for him and was rewarded with a 12.5% VA home loan rate. So much promise just like Obama and so little result.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 17, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    Reading the comments, it seems to me that the editorial board would do well to listen to its readers. They are providing a lot more insight and common sense than this editorial.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 17, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    And so you are saying to send in troops. Your approach didn't work in 2003. It made things much, much worse. Who is writing your editorials? Dick Cheney? This newspaper editorial board baffles me. Talk about naive, irresponsible and ignorant of history. Didn't you also advocate arming the Syrian rebels, the same folks leading the charge into Iraq? Your judgment, and that of McCain, Chaffetz, and the entire Bush neo-con team, is utterly a waste of time and devoid of good sense. We tried your way, and all it did was destabilize the Middle East, feed the snake of terrorism and burdened the West for decades to come. Our national interests are exactly not what you are promoting.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 17, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    "but the mission of establishing a free, peaceful and self-sustaining government there was far from over"

    Others have commented on this statement correctly. Let remind everyone of the hubris and historical ignorance it takes to think we can "establish a free, and peaceful Iraqi state"

    Remember the state of Iraq is a construct of the post WWI era. The Iraqis have never voluntarily come together to form a state. And if one has any sense of history they know that loose and confrontational societies always revert to authoritarianism for control. Heck even the United States quickly moved from a confederation of states to a much stronger federal system and a federal constitution.

    So yes the situation is what it is but please don't DN and anyone asking for intervention, base your thought on the fantasy that we can "establish" a free and peaceful Iraq.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 17, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    Before we engage in any military action I would like to see the following amendment passed.

    For any and all military engagements, the draft must be reinstated. The family members of those in Congress, and any others deemed to have an interest in going to war (such as contractors) cannot exempt their families from the draft who would otherwise be fully eligible.

    This way everyone has skin in the game. I feel we would be far less likely to beat the drums of war knowing that our family may very well be placed in danger. We would stop to ask, is invading Iraq worth potentially sending my son to war?

    We have an all volunteer force now, that is tired from 14 years of war and several tours of duty. But, we as a nation, seem all to eager to "put them to work again".

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2014 7:41 a.m.

    We could occupy Iraq for the next hundred years and the Sunnis and Shiites would still go back to fighting each other the minute we left.

  • Ralph West Jordan Taylorsville, UT
    June 17, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    The statement made in the opening of this editorial "In Iraq, the mission still is far from accomplished." is true! Unfortunately the mission in Iraq is an "Mission Impossible"!

    It matters not what we do, how much we invest, how much of our blood we shed, or how long we stay, we will never be able to change the hatred among the three factions that want to govern Iraq! Simply put we CANNOT fix it! It has gone on for hundred if not thousands of years!

    Every politician in DC knows we are fortunate to be out of Iraq, but as hideous as it is, they will in an effort to demean and discredit the other side of the isle, beat the war drums and profess we should again get involved in another countries internal affairs by using our military might!

    Correct me if I am wrong but was it not Malaki who asked us to leave in Dec. 2011, after refusing our offer to leave troops on the ground if they could be assured of immunity. That immunity being declined by the Iraqi Legislature!

    We are out and should stay out.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 17, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    We withdrew along the timetable set by the SOFA agreement between the Iraqi government and the Bush administration in 2008. Obama did not set our withdrawal timeline, that was done before he even became president. I served in Baghdad from 2003-2004 and the mission was extremely unclear. Now, according to this editorial, you want us all to go back and stay for an undefined amount of time. Which side do you want us to support? The Shia's who are aligned with Iran, make up the majority of the Iraqi population, and want to impose an Islamic theocracy similar to Iran? The Iraqi constitution already states that Iraq is governed by Islamic law. Or do you want to support the Sunnis who are aligned with ISIS and Al-Qaeda? Those are the only two choices. Or do you just want to do the opposite of whatever President Obama suggests? That is likely the reality here.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    Also, since you were high energy supporters of the Iraq invasion, why did we invade Iraq?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 17, 2014 6:54 a.m.

    There's no fixing Iraq, certainly not by us. Insufficient analysis, and greed for access to Iraq's oil reserves, motivated the American attack on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was, fairly enough, an evil dictator, and many of his actions and tactics in his own country were indeed war crimes in any international setting. But, he was sitting on a volcano of sectarian resentments, in a highly volcanic region of the world.

    The US invasion of Iraq pulled the cork out of that volcano, and the violence will continue to escalate, causing untold misery, until it is spent. There is no way to quell a civil war which is part class warfare, part holy crusade, and part retribution. At this point, the US is not party to that conflict. The Shia and Sunni factions are in various measure, terrified of each other, and trying to conquer each other. The vast majority of the country would prefer to just live in peace, but the longer this goes on, the more people will get drawn into that volcano.

    No, we can't fix it. We can only make it worse.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    George Bush Jr. was warned that invading Iraq could spark a war between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Apparently Bush was unaware that there were two different strains of Islam that had been warring with one another for the past thousand years. Although the Sunnis are a minority of the population, they had been running the country for the past several decades, and they were not particularly kind to the Shiites. It was obvious to many observers that free and open elections would result in a Shiite government which would seek pay-back for many decades of repression. This is exactly what we have.

    It is instructive to note that government of Iraq, even now that they are under siege, is rejecting offers of assistance from Sunni groups. They want Shiites to remain in power, and no compromise with Sunnis will be tolerated. The U.S. has nowhere near enough power to end the centuries old Sunni/Shiite schism.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    June 17, 2014 6:02 a.m.

    I think that if we are to be the world's policeman, we ought to have a separate tax placed upon us that separately funds this activity.

    Let the Congress and the Senate debate how much we are willing to spend on these "adventures" and fund it as a completely separate expense from the rest of the defense budget. I would suggest either a national sales tax to do so, or a separate line item on the federal tax return, which all American citizens would pay. It is only in this way that each of us knows the full extent of the cost of war.

    Oh, and we should probably reinstitute the draft is we are going to be policeman to the world as well. Again, every citizen, male and female, is subject to service. No exceptions to political children, and none of this Air Force reserve nonsense.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    June 17, 2014 5:37 a.m.

    I guess I need to be educated about the risks to U.S. interests. I agree that failed states can be a haven for terrorists, but I'm not sure I see why Iraq is unique in that regard. What other American interests are at stake?

  • ECR Burke, VA
    June 17, 2014 5:25 a.m.

    "The United States withdrew too early, reacting more to political pressures at home than to the long-term dangers of an Iraq too unstable to protect itself."

    And how much longer would it have taken for Iraq to become stable enough to protect itself. Like any good parent, you do all you can to prepare your children to go out in the world and then you have to let them go. Sometimes you have to force them to go and provide for themselves. The United States, the parent in this scenario, had already given way too much in terms of dead soldiers and our national treasure. In what was an ill-advised venture in the first place, we did more than our part in trying to bring stability and freedom to this part of the world. But at some point it is up to the people of Iraq to take charge and do what is necessary. Clearly the people and government have not done their part in this challenge. Maybe they lived too long under the strong arm of Hussien where much of their daily lives were determined by the restrictions placed on them. They need to get over it.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    June 17, 2014 2:31 a.m.

    "The invasion that toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein may well have been finished at that point, but the mission of establishing a free, peaceful and self-sustaining government there was far from over."

    --- Why was it our place to not only go into another country and force out the leader that held it together (bad guy or not), then assume we should choose their government for them?

    --- What about the fact that we destroyed the infrastructure of the country and killed a couple hundred thousand of its citizens? Do people with no electricity or water and a dead son start loving the USA and wanting to be like us?

    --- What about the arrogance of thinking we are so great that groups who have been adversaries for hundreds of years will drop that and follow us?

    --- And what about the trillions of dollars drained from our country? Our dead boys?

    Bush's statement was ignorant. Obama's was "trying to make the best of a bad situation and get the heck out of a place we can't fix"

    The DN seems to revel in knocking this President, which I find to be wrong.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    June 17, 2014 12:19 a.m.

    Are we foolish enough to think we can rid the world of terrorist? The only practical thing we can do is stop being the world police.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2014 12:07 a.m.

    I must agree with Pat Buchanan who said:

    "And if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his 900,000-man army, and Shia militia cannot defend Baghdad from a few thousand Islamist warriors, America is under no obligation to do it for them."

    Also, remember please that we left because Maliki told us to get out.