Published: Tuesday, June 17 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Also, since you were high energy supporters of the Iraq invasion, why did we
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
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.
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.
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".
"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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments