New Iraq Occupation

[masterfins]

Without getting into whether this is Obama's or Bush's fault.  What's the deal with the Iraq army?  It seems like it is a scene from the movie Stripes were the opposing forces point their guns at each other, and one side just hands them over without firing a shot.  How else could they take over all these cities with nary a fight??  Geez these Iraqi's are worse than the French.

[Spider-Dan]

As I understand it:

Iraq has long been composed of three mostly separate groups:

- Shiite Muslim (majority)
- Sunni Muslim (minority)
- ethnic Kurds (minority)

Syria (to the west) is predominantly Sunni, and Iran (to the east) is predominantly Shiite.  Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim, and kept all three factions together by force (to varying degrees).  With Saddam's regime deposed, the factions are now basically splitting up the country; the Iraqi government we installed is controlled by Shiite Muslims, and ISIS (affiliated with Syria) is a Sunni organization.  So right now, ISIS has been taking over cities with majority Sunni population, and Shiite Iraqi military aren't particularly willing to lay down their lives for areas they barely even care about.  Meanwhile, the Kurds in the north are pretty much keeping to themselves, hoping that they'll be left alone to form their own country (which might not sit well with Turkey on the north border).

The only thing keeping this civil war from happening decades ago was Saddam's iron fist.  With him gone, there's probably going to have be a 2- or 3-state solution.  American leadership didn't want this, because the new Shiite-controlled state would essentially be an extension of Iran; in a nutshell, the result of the Iraq War would be to remove one of Iran's rivals and turn them into Iran's puppet.

[Dolphster]

Without getting into whether this is Obama's or Bush's fault.  What's the deal with the Iraq army?  It seems like it is a scene from the movie Stripes were the opposing forces point their guns at each other, and one side just hands them over without firing a shot.  How else could they take over all these cities with nary a fight??  Geez these Iraqi's are worse than the French.

The whole "training the Iraqi's to handle their own security" was a sham from the start.  I was deployed there from 2005 - 2006.  Every time that any of our integrated units would engage with the enemy, the majority of our Iraqi guys would either run away, panic and shoot each other, or panic and run around in circles.  Everything that we accomplished militarily was done almost solely on our own.  Then the politicians would spin it so that the media would report that the battle was a joint effort with our Iraqi military partners.  What a freaking joke.  They are great at saber rattling and talking about how the "blood of their enemies will run in the streets" but when any actual fighting starts, the only thing running was the Iraqis. 

[DenverFinFan]

As I understand it:

Iraq has long been composed of three mostly separate groups:

- Shiite Muslim (majority)
- Sunni Muslim (minority)
- ethnic Kurds (minority)

Syria (to the west) is predominantly Sunni, and Iran (to the east) is predominantly Shiite.  Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim, and kept all three factions together by force (to varying degrees).  With Saddam's regime deposed, the factions are now basically splitting up the country; the Iraqi government we installed is controlled by Shiite Muslims, and ISIS (affiliated with Syria) is a Sunni organization.  So right now, ISIS has been taking over cities with majority Sunni population, and Shiite Iraqi military aren't particularly willing to lay down their lives for areas they barely even care about.  Meanwhile, the Kurds in the north are pretty much keeping to themselves, hoping that they'll be left alone to form their own country (which might not sit well with Turkey on the north border).

The only thing keeping this civil war from happening decades ago was Saddam's iron fist.  With him gone, there's probably going to have be a 2- or 3-state solution.  American leadership didn't want this, because the new Shiite-controlled state would essentially be an extension of Iran; in a nutshell, the result of the Iraq War would be to remove one of Iran's rivals and turn them into Iran's puppet.

Mostly right but although Syria is a Sunni majority, the Syrian government is mostly Alawite a Shia off-shoot and saying ISIS has connections to Syria is misleading because people will assume it is connected to the Assad regime, when it is rebels (where I'm sure US Weapons or Training has gone to) fighting him that is the real Syria connection.

Say what you will about Saddam or Assad or Qadaffi but the region was much more stable with them in charge, or as In Assad's case not involved with a bloody Islamic uprising.

Anyway the US caused this problem, and we can't fix it, other than maybe getting International agreements to stop supplying anyone with any kind of arms. If you want a military make it your fucking self.

[bsmooth]

The Sunni's and Shiites have been on the verge of slugging it out for awhile. They are like the Catholics and Protestants in the 15-16th centuries. I say let them beat on each other in Iraq for awhile.

[Spider-Dan]

Say what you will about Saddam or Assad or Qadaffi but the region was much more stable with them in charge, or as In Assad's case not involved with a bloody Islamic uprising.

In the 1860s, you could have said, "Say what you will about King George, but the States were a lot more stable when he was in charge."

Dictatorships are usually pretty simple.  Self-determination is messy.

[bsmooth]

In the 1860s, you could have said, "Say what you will about King George, but the States were a lot more stable when he was in charge."

Dictatorships are usually pretty simple.  Self-determination is messy.

Especially when there is a religious split involved.

[DenverFinFan]

In the 1860s, you could have said, "Say what you will about King George, but the States were a lot more stable when he was in charge."

Dictatorships are usually pretty simple.  Self-determination is messy.

Hmm, don't think we rebelled in the 19th century.

It's not self-determination if it is forced upon you via shock and awe.

We've been fighting the "War on Terror" for 13 years in September, and all it has led to is a Jihadist army all across the mid-east, less freedom in those countries, and created more danger for the US. Talk about short-sighted policies, and that's all I'm saying.

[Spider-Dan]

Hmm, don't think we rebelled in the 19th century.

Do you know what happened in the U.S. in the 1860s, and why it is relevant to what is currently happening in Iraq?

In the 1860s, you could have said, "Americans weren't slaughtering each other by the thousands when King George was in charge," in exactly the same sense that Iraqis and Syrians and Libyans were not slaughtering each other by the thousands when Saddam/Assad/Gaddafi had a firm grip on their respective countries.

It's not self-determination if it is forced upon you via shock and awe.

What we did in Iraq 11 years ago was not self-determination.
What they are doing in Iraq now is.