The French attack

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fact - at the height of the Surge, Al Queda in Iraq was decimated. We have th ecommunications intercepts from their leaders, saying it was lost.

But it wasn't destroyed. al Qaeda in Iraq was suffering largely because we were PAYING Sunni militants to push back against it. That's not a long term strategy...

Fact - when Obama announced that he wasn't going to seek a SOF agreement, but was going to pull everyone out, many military experts advised him that bad things would happen in th evaccuum our departure would create. Ask the Cambodians if it's a coincidence that Pol Pot waited until we withdreew from Vietnam to start his genocide.

As we've discussed a million times (perhaps you need a million +1) there already was a SOF agreement in place per the Bush administration. The new Iraqi government wanted us out, and the Bush policy of de-Bathification is a key reason we didn't have reasonable options.

I'm not sure what Cambodia has to do with this. Are you suggesting we should have left a small residual force?

Fact - after we withdrew, ISIS filled that void.

Not really. The first void that ISIS was able to take advantage of was more a by-product of the Syrian civil war. The second void was created by the Iraqi government using Shiite troops to guard Sunnis in Mosul.

Fact - Obama (who is always wrong, yet somehow never in doubt), called them "the junior varsity".

He did, and at that time they were the JV. I don't think he wanted to give them any more cred than necessary.

Fact - hours before the Paris attack, Obama said that ISIS was contained, and that among our successes, has been increased security at international airports. Incredibky, he said that, while the fuselage of the downed Russian plane was probably still smoldering. Did no one on his staff tell him that happened?

The context for that remark clearly was that ISIS was not capturing new territory and in fact appears to be losing some critical ground. I think the timing of recent terror events are a result of this pressure.

ISIS knows they can't win if the key powers unite to destroy them. They need to stir up a global backlash against Islam. Listening to most of the GOP candidates it sounds like we're starting down that path.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

But it wasn't destroyed. al Qaeda in Iraq was suffering largely because we were PAYING Sunni militants to push back against it. That's not a long term strategy...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-isis-fighters

How's that for strategy? $500 million for training and only 4 or 5 have entered the battle
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-isis-fighters

How's that for strategy? $500 million for training and only 4 or 5 have entered the battle
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Old news...how are the Kurds with US assistance doing now?

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by spence

... the Bush policy of de-Bathification ...

but but but but Bush

Newflash: ISIS leadership is comprised of Saddam Hussein's Baathist military and intelligence leadership.

Long and juicy article.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1029274.html

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

but but but but Bush

Newflash: ISIS leadership is comprised of Saddam Hussein's Baathist military and intelligence leadership.

Sorry if history isn't convenient. It was one of a LONG list of strategic blunders you want to blame Obama for not being able to magically fix.

And yes, ISIS was able to gain strength because the former Baathist military leadership...WAS OUT OF WORK.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry if history isn't convenient. It was one of a LONG list of strategic blunders you want to blame Obama for not being able to magically fix.

And yes, ISIS was able to gain strength because the former Baathist military leadership...WAS OUT OF WORK.

You responded and haven't even read the article.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

You responded and haven't even read the article.

Where's the spanking emoji ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

You responded and haven't even read the article.

Didn't need to. The involvement of former Iraqi military leadership in ISIS is well known...

[scottw]

Spence only reads the daily talking points...

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by spence

Didn't need to. The involvement of former Iraqi military leadership in ISIS is well known...

Uh, I dunno if this fact is appreciated by the general public. They seem to have an impression of ISIS being jihadist radicals. Actually, the leadership isn't.

Hilldog was appointed Sec State in 2009.

The withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq finished up some time in December 2011.

ISIS didn't claim the Levant until 2013.

After WWII hostilities ceased, General Patton kept some Nazis in place to keep an interim government functioning. He caught a little flack for it but it worked out.

Before Bush left office all the libs here were screaming about how Iraq was a mistake and how Bush screwed it up. I don't know if the de baathification of Iraq was talked here (maybe) but ...

Both Obama and Hillary had plenty of time to fix this before ISIS became an issue. They had every opportunity to make simple fixes.

Hindsight is 20/20 ... but what does this tell you about Hillary's and Obozo's statecraft?

Iraqi Baathist officials were Sunni but largely secular. Wouldn't have been much of a stink to re-instate them.

They made the situation worse by withdrawing and doing nothing else.

Pathetic.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishpoopoo

Uh, I dunno if this fact is appreciated by the general public. They seem to have an impression of ISIS being jihadist radicals. Actually, the leadership isn't.

So we're not at war with jihadists? Somebody had better tell Jim.

Both Obama and Hillary had plenty of time to fix this before ISIS became an issue. They had every opportunity to make simple fixes.

Iraqi Baathist officials were Sunni but largely secular. Wouldn't have been much of a stink to re-instate them.

They made the situation worse by withdrawing and doing nothing else.

Not much of a stink to re-instate Baathist officials? That's beyond idealistic thinking. It's silly actually.

As for those "simple fixes." I assume you mean like unilateral involvement in the Syrian civil war? Letting US troops stay in Iraq governed by Iraqi law?

This is a big and complex issue without any easy fixes. Obama's policy may have been cautious and assumed the Iraqi's would actually use the equipment we gave them. But the flip side quickly puts us into another protracted and messy war largely isolated from the International community.