Posted on Jun 13, 2014
The ISIS says they are marching on Baghdad next. Should we go back to Iraq?
15.4K
306
139
11
11
0
If the ISI takes Baghdad, does it make the entire war in vain?
http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/andrea-mitchell-iraq-asks-us-help-quell-militant-uprising-n129086
http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/andrea-mitchell-iraq-asks-us-help-quell-militant-uprising-n129086
Iraq
ISIS
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 59
12
12
0
We did what we said we would do. We ousted Saddam Hussein, helped to initiate free elections, and laid the groundwork for Iraq to become self sufficient. In my opinion we should stay out of this and let the people of Iraq deal with their own internal problems. We are NOT the worlds keepers. If we are so popular why then are their people who want to see us fall flat on our collective asses without offering any assistance? So much for my .02.
(12)
(0)
(6)
(0)
Cpl Robert Clark
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out... basic tenant of successful warefare... the hearts and minds of a people indocrinated in deception and lies should be of no concern to us (unless we're missionaries of some kind) unfortunately, we do not learn from history, so we continue to repeat it... and with dire consequences...
(1)
(0)
SSG Maurice P.
CPL CLARK well said...Us Marines understand that, and we are mentally prepared to stand before the enemy and destroy him. Where as the Army and Air force want to placate and be politically correct...
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
In order to keep Al-Qaeda from obtaining another country for a base of operations, I believe we have a vested interest in helping Iraq. Honestly, we pulled out too soon.
(9)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
I agree Major Woods. All we have done is created two monsters now instead of being able to contain one.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
I saw this on FaceBook...
ISIS is in Iraq??? Sorry, found it hilarious!!!
Go back to Iraq, like others have said, proper SOFA and this time fight a declared war or at least fight like we did in WW2 - we smash things till the bad guys realize the option is total surrender or annihilation.
ISIS is in Iraq??? Sorry, found it hilarious!!!
Go back to Iraq, like others have said, proper SOFA and this time fight a declared war or at least fight like we did in WW2 - we smash things till the bad guys realize the option is total surrender or annihilation.
(7)
(0)
SSG Maurice P.
yes you kill everything in front of you let the navy seabee's and the air force red horse make a parking lot of what is behind you...
(2)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
HA! Sterling Archer, Codename Duchess...
Sir, I am ready to close with, engage and SMASH our enemies.
Sir, I am ready to close with, engage and SMASH our enemies.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
We accomplished our original objective. This is sovereign nation that is having internal problems. If they request the support of international forces (UN Peacekeepers or NATO) then we should return in that capacity. The US should not unilaterally return "just because". Having said that, if we can assist the Iraqi military with some type of support, I'm all for it. But even air strikes will require some ground coordination to prevent civilian casualties and I personally don't' have faith in the Iraqi military to provide us the proper information. We would have to send in some troops. It's a tough choice to make, but one that we shouldn't even entertain making until we have some type of SOFA with Iraq.
(7)
(0)
5
5
0
If we do go back we need to keep the White House and every other outlet out. This way we can do our jobs the way it is meant to be done. Wars are not fought to win hearts and minds; they are fought to eliminate a threat.
(5)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
War for religion is something I can not understand, but these folks need to be ELIMINATED....
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
When the ISI take Baghdad, which they will, it won't mean that the war was in vain. It will mean that the government of Iraq wasn't able to stand on its own two feet, but their failure and ours are not tied together as closely as some may think. Even if I were to concede to you that the falling of Baghdad meant that we failed, would it mean that we should return to Iraq? What would the desired end state be? That is the question we need to answer first.
Just because we were in Iraq for so long doesn't mean that we can stroll back and resume operations. Nothing is in place to support this activity. Putting troops on the ground would be an expensive and lengthy process that we can't really afford right now.
Just because we were in Iraq for so long doesn't mean that we can stroll back and resume operations. Nothing is in place to support this activity. Putting troops on the ground would be an expensive and lengthy process that we can't really afford right now.
(5)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
The amount of infrastructure and equipment we put there is often overlooked, as is the cost of it. Not having been there in many years, and the US not having been there in several, I am willing to bet that all or almost all of that is gone & we would have to start all over like it was 2002 again.
Add to that that all the civilians and political leaders in Iraq have learned an important lesson on trusting in American promises.
Add to that that all the civilians and political leaders in Iraq have learned an important lesson on trusting in American promises.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
We shouldn't go until the Iraqi Government signs a proper Status of Forces Agreement - just like any other country we deploy to / have agreements to support or defend. The Iraqi's got what they wanted - the U.S. military out of their country - maybe it's time for them to see the error of their ways for a while.
(5)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
agreed if they need us then they will ask for us. we need to change the way the world views the U.S.A even if it is for a brief moment.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I believe we need to take a tactical pause and see what is truly happening prior to make any commitments
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Sgt Spencer Sikder
Interesting on how the current administration is trying to do damage control to their middle east foreign policies. Especially in light of all the problems in the area that has developed more recently, although has been on going for a while.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I voted that we should go back to Iraq, but that comes with a bit of a caveat to it.
I think that if the country completely destabilizes and we find that ISIL and other groups can establish their own pseudo nation state in Iraq, then we will have a tremendous threat to our own security and the security of our allies. They are capturing the equipment and weapons that we left to the Iraqis which can help push them into a more well armed militant group. Basically, they are going to gain so much, that they will actually become something much larger and more dangerous than before.
If they stay within the borders of Iraq, then I frankly am on the fence about how we should handle the situation. If they start pushing into operations elsewhere, such as Kuwait, Jordan, etc....then we really have a problem that will need to be addressed. Due to the likelihood of expanded operations, I frankly see this as one of the times where agressive, preemptive behavior may be warranted. The threat is growing and the stakes are higher than before.
Also, Iraq is an ally. We helped establish the nation that exists today through our own actions and those of the coalition. How would react if this were another ally? We can not sit back and pretend that one ally is more valuable than another when it comes to something so serious. Can we write off Iraq by not supporting them? What would the fallout be for such action? Politically, would our other allies question our loyalty.
This is a tricky, and challenging situation. Finess must be used, but we can ill afford to sit back too long if the writing on the wall becomes clear. I am afraid that inaction will lead to a larger threat that will become much more impossible to stave off. There is obviously next to no political solution to the situation. I think the question becomes what do we do to protect our interestes at home and abroad without creating further issues and problems. Is there a point that the correct, morally-sound stance is the one that is unpopular?
There will be a lot of questions to answer as this develops and a lot of decisions to defend.
I think that if the country completely destabilizes and we find that ISIL and other groups can establish their own pseudo nation state in Iraq, then we will have a tremendous threat to our own security and the security of our allies. They are capturing the equipment and weapons that we left to the Iraqis which can help push them into a more well armed militant group. Basically, they are going to gain so much, that they will actually become something much larger and more dangerous than before.
If they stay within the borders of Iraq, then I frankly am on the fence about how we should handle the situation. If they start pushing into operations elsewhere, such as Kuwait, Jordan, etc....then we really have a problem that will need to be addressed. Due to the likelihood of expanded operations, I frankly see this as one of the times where agressive, preemptive behavior may be warranted. The threat is growing and the stakes are higher than before.
Also, Iraq is an ally. We helped establish the nation that exists today through our own actions and those of the coalition. How would react if this were another ally? We can not sit back and pretend that one ally is more valuable than another when it comes to something so serious. Can we write off Iraq by not supporting them? What would the fallout be for such action? Politically, would our other allies question our loyalty.
This is a tricky, and challenging situation. Finess must be used, but we can ill afford to sit back too long if the writing on the wall becomes clear. I am afraid that inaction will lead to a larger threat that will become much more impossible to stave off. There is obviously next to no political solution to the situation. I think the question becomes what do we do to protect our interestes at home and abroad without creating further issues and problems. Is there a point that the correct, morally-sound stance is the one that is unpopular?
There will be a lot of questions to answer as this develops and a lot of decisions to defend.
(3)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
My concern is the 2nd and 3rd order affects of that. True, it would be reverting back to essentially it's pre-colonial state, but the world is a much different place than it was 100 years ago. Turkey will not tolerate a Independent Iraqi Kurdistan on it's southern border. Shia Iraq will look to Iran. And sunni Iraq may become a safe haven for terrorist.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
This would seem to be a fair assessment.
I am curious how if this were to happen what would happen in places like Syria, Lebanon, and other states that are either in chaos or one event away from it. This is to assume that ISIL will push beyond the borders and certain groups may be utilized as proxies to continue the push to develop other fronts.
I also wonder what could happen in more stable countries that have burgening economies, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia could end up sandwhiched between groups in Yemen and Iraq. It would be a big push for them to try to push into Saudi Arabia in a large manner, but they could seek to interrupt energy resources in order to affect western markets. Then again, we could postulize potential outcomes all day long. I think that it is good to see the Iraqis fighting for Baghdad, but it almost feels like they are just slowing them down and not stopping them.
I am curious how if this were to happen what would happen in places like Syria, Lebanon, and other states that are either in chaos or one event away from it. This is to assume that ISIL will push beyond the borders and certain groups may be utilized as proxies to continue the push to develop other fronts.
I also wonder what could happen in more stable countries that have burgening economies, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia could end up sandwhiched between groups in Yemen and Iraq. It would be a big push for them to try to push into Saudi Arabia in a large manner, but they could seek to interrupt energy resources in order to affect western markets. Then again, we could postulize potential outcomes all day long. I think that it is good to see the Iraqis fighting for Baghdad, but it almost feels like they are just slowing them down and not stopping them.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
The House of Saud would be existentially threatened by ISIS, however there is huge support of the Wahabi version of Islam both overtly and tacitly within their government structure and populace. The emirates tend to be more moderate.
As for the Iraqi call to arms, I don't have a whole lot of confidence in their ability to stop the advance. The ISIS fighters are trained veterans of the civil war in Syria. The guys lining up to fight them are raw recruits. They may be brave, but I don't see them standing, particularly when faced with summary execution if they are caught.
As for the Iraqi call to arms, I don't have a whole lot of confidence in their ability to stop the advance. The ISIS fighters are trained veterans of the civil war in Syria. The guys lining up to fight them are raw recruits. They may be brave, but I don't see them standing, particularly when faced with summary execution if they are caught.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google