Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
President Obama: More humanitarian (my term for his excuse) airstrikes in Iraq (Original Post) bigtree Aug 2014 OP
This message was self-deleted by its author Autumn Aug 2014 #1
'humanitarian' is my hastily, angrily written term, but the justifications he gave are the same bigtree Aug 2014 #8
Thank you. I was looking for a transcript to see what his reasoning is this time. Autumn Aug 2014 #12
Obama's full August 18 Address and Transcript here: KoKo Aug 2014 #30
Operation Peace Prize? Izzat what they're calling this one? elehhhhna Aug 2014 #26
President Obama is right to use air strikes against ISIS agbdf Aug 2014 #2
+1 conservaphobe Aug 2014 #4
it's a counterproductive exercise which is inviting a new generation of retaliation bigtree Aug 2014 #6
Okay, I respect your point of view... agbdf Aug 2014 #16
I'm sorry to be so contrary and defensive of my position bigtree Aug 2014 #18
Nothing says love exboyfil Aug 2014 #3
There are groups in the world today that deserve the airstrikes. ISIS is one of them. badtoworse Aug 2014 #5
It's a reckless and demonstrably counterproductive effort bigtree Aug 2014 #10
I don't believe that ignoring Islamic fundamentalists is a viable long term strategy. badtoworse Aug 2014 #15
we create, fuel and foster them with military activity like this bigtree Aug 2014 #20
In the long run, we are going to have to fight the Fundamentalists. badtoworse Aug 2014 #22
you didn't read and absorb what I wrote that quick - You just didn't bigtree Aug 2014 #23
You're hardly the first to argue that fighting them will only make them madder... badtoworse Aug 2014 #29
If not air strikes then what do you suggest? Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #7
The U.S. has forfeited our ability to act with our military in Iraq bigtree Aug 2014 #9
My question again what can be done, if the steps Obama has taken then what Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #13
I see several regional countries, neighbors and others already in place and some already operating bigtree Aug 2014 #17
I hate war also, invading Iraq took the cork out of the bottle which was keeping a thumb on Iran Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #19
I just gave you one. Get the neighbors and regional countries surrounding them involved bigtree Aug 2014 #24
This would be good, perhaps allowing Iraq to return before it was joined together. Thinkingabout Aug 2014 #27
If the dam fails it might start to look like a humanitarian problem TwilightGardener Aug 2014 #11
Obama said that the dam has been reclaimed Autumn Aug 2014 #14
by the Kurdish forces bigtree Aug 2014 #25
He's rallying the base for November Doctor_J Aug 2014 #21
Nothing like getting Democrats out to vote like a good old war. Autumn Aug 2014 #28
K&R woo me with science Aug 2014 #31

Response to bigtree (Original post)

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
8. 'humanitarian' is my hastily, angrily written term, but the justifications he gave are the same
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 04:47 PM
Aug 2014

. . .actually the nbc reporter lady's term which was echoing in my head.

I'll remove the quote marks so there's no misunderstanding.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
30. Obama's full August 18 Address and Transcript here:
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 09:18 AM
Aug 2014

President Obama’s August 18th Address to the Nation on Ferguson, Mo. and Iraq&quot Transcript Included)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017210251

 

agbdf

(200 posts)
2. President Obama is right to use air strikes against ISIS
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 04:36 PM
Aug 2014

ISIS has been on a murderous rampage and are threatening to topple a democratically elected government. I, as well as most Democrats in Congress, back President Obama's actions.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
6. it's a counterproductive exercise which is inviting a new generation of retaliation
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 04:43 PM
Aug 2014

. . . and an invitation to a new generation of individuals in Iraq and elsewhere to violently and otherwise oppose the U.S, our interests, and our allies.

This administration thinks they can reinvent the wheel in Iraq, albeit, with less tools and hours put into the effort than the previous generation. They are building the same monster that they're looking to put down. It's a self-defeating effort which will be self-perpetuating and self-actualizing, prompting the defense of our own self-deluded deployment.

 

agbdf

(200 posts)
16. Okay, I respect your point of view...
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 05:35 PM
Aug 2014

However, I have more faith in Obama then those who hold your view. He has wisely rejected those who would put combat troops on the ground. I think he is a great President who is taking a wise course of action. Also, like, Obama, I will lose no sleep over the loss of ISIS fighters to our drones and planes. They make our own Tea Party here in the US look like reasonable people.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
18. I'm sorry to be so contrary and defensive of my position
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 05:57 PM
Aug 2014

. . . but we already have 'boots on the ground.' That's what the Special Forces are - unless we assume they're just hovering several inches above the Iraqi soil.

Ditto, for my response to your own considered response to me, what I've written in response to others about the counterproductive, self-perpetuating effects of the already escalated and slippery deployments and military activity.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
10. It's a reckless and demonstrably counterproductive effort
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 04:58 PM
Aug 2014

Is there any more convincing measure of the folly of supporting this than the very fact that nothing our forces have done so far there has caused the military to assert that we're making any progress at all in putting down what they first called a rag-tag handful of insurgents? Don't tell me that more troops, more air attacks are the answer. Did a full scale occupation under Bush protect and defend civilians there any better?

Did we miss the horror of civilian killings all around our occupying troops in Iraq under Bush; all with orders to attack and kill opponents at will? Did we miss the Iraqi family members who lined the river every day to watch the steady flow of dead and bloated bodies in the sad and awful expectation that they could identify one as their own kin?

Is there any more proof of the utter ignorance of a unilateral, escalated U.S. deployment than the virtual silence from the vast majority of the former 'coalition of willing' partners in our opportunistic imperialism?

. .we forfeited any moral justification for responding to insurgencies in Iraq with the force of our military; specifically troops, CIA operatives and drones.

The efficacy and efect of these deployments has been demonstrated counterproductive and dangerously provocative. The only response to the blowback from these deployments our politicians, military, and intelligence operatives seems to be able to manage is more opportunistic militarism, in a never ending cycle of attacks and reprisals.

We never account for the blowback, which has been a fostering and fueling of scores more resistant violence than our forces are able to put down. President Obama was correct when he stated that the solution is political in Iraq. He needs to trust his own words and live up to them.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
15. I don't believe that ignoring Islamic fundamentalists is a viable long term strategy.
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 05:26 PM
Aug 2014

I don't believe it's possible to coexist with a group that is dedicated to destroying Western ideals and spreading Islam by force. The problem will get worse if we ignore it and let ISIS get stronger.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
20. we create, fuel and foster them with military activity like this
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:05 PM
Aug 2014

. . . our own military actions in Iraq make it worse. that's not just rhetoric, it's proven by conclusions Bush's and Obama's own intelligence agencies.

We used to understand, progressives here and elsewhere who are glossing this U.S. military response to the humanitarian crisis atop that mountain in northern Iraq. Glossing over the latest fight to stop insurgents in Iraq; glossing over the fact we should know well, that our military presence and action in Iraq is an irresistible lure for individuals looking to do battle with America; in this case, individuals who view America as an enemy of their religion.

What doesn't seem to be understood by progressives here who are rightly concerned about the spread of terrorism is that the U.S. military attacks - our country's military presence and activities - are ultimately counterproductive to the goals of eliminating any threat that comes from the fundamentalist groups fomenting violence in Iraq - or anywhere else, for that matter.

Opposition to U.S. military action in Iraq goes deeper than just advocating non-violence. It's an opposition to exactly the same 'dumb-war' behavior that President Obama correctly described early in his presidency. It's the misguided notion that the U.S. is indispensable in these matters.

It's the twisted logic that 'we broke it,' therefore, we have to fix it. Except, fixing it means to this administration and military - as it meant to the Bush administration and military - fomenting even more violence in the vain and hopeless aim of ending it.

It's not a matter of just leaving people to die, as many describe the position of opponents of U.S. military intervention - or letting terrorists prevail. Other nations are more suited to help them and we should use our energy and whatever influence we have to encourage them.

It's about the realization that our country, having already broken the country with our destabilizing, destructive, and opportunistic war waged for greed and petty political purposes, can scarcely hope to repair it using the same destabilizing and destructive violence.

As Bush's own spy agencies correctly cautioned in their 2006 intelligence estimate, our military activity in Iraq had the effect of fostering and fueling even more individuals bent on violent resistance to U.S., our allies, and our interests, than they were able to put down.

It should be no surprise at all to see the report last month from this President's intelligence agencies that our military presence and activity in Iraq - however altruistic the mission - is having the exact same effect of drawing more individuals looking to do battle with our nation, from around the globe, to rally to this emerging insurgent group's deadly cause.

from WaPo Aug. 9:

US intel sees defections from AQ affiliates as fighters flock to ISIS. Q whether strikes will "increase the spigot" …
Fighters abandoning al-Qaeda affiliates to join Islamic State, U.S. officials say

U.S. spy agencies have begun to see groups of fighters abandoning al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Africa to join the rival Islamist organization that has seized territory in Iraq and Syria and been targeted in American airstrikes, U.S. officials said.

The movements are seen by U.S. counterterrorism analysts as a worrisome indication of the expanding appeal of a group known as the Islamic State that has overwhelmed military forces in the region and may now see itself in direct conflict with the United States.

. . . The launching of U.S. airstrikes has raised new questions, including whether the bombings will hurt the Islamic State’s ability to draw recruits or elevate its status among jihadists. “Does that increase the spigot or close it?” said a senior U.S. counterterrorism official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity and noted that U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere have crippled al-Qaeda but also served as rallying cries against the United States.

Longer-term, U.S. officials expressed concern that the Islamic State, which so far has been focused predominantly on its goal of reestablishing an Islamic caliphate, may now place greater emphasis on carrying out attacks against the United States and its allies.


. . .and, so it goes.
 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
22. In the long run, we are going to have to fight the Fundamentalists.
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:09 PM
Aug 2014

I'd rather do it now. They're not going to go away if we ignore them. We're not going to agree about this.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
23. you didn't read and absorb what I wrote that quick - You just didn't
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:13 PM
Aug 2014

. . . and what I wrote stands.

The 'long-run' effect of what you're advocating so blithely is even more 'fundamentalists' bent on violently opposing the U.S. our allies and interests than we can possibly put down.

I'm not going to pretend that you care a wit about what I've presented for you. I'm writing for those who want to learn and grow past this 'stupid war' behavior.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
29. You're hardly the first to argue that fighting them will only make them madder...
Wed Aug 20, 2014, 08:41 AM
Aug 2014

...and encourage others to join their ranks. You're also not the first to imply that fighting them ourselves will only result in them attacking us directly or with greater determination. I hate to break it to you, but the toothpaste has been out of that tube for a long time. Islamic fundamentalists are going to attack us regardless of what we do in Iraq and allowing them to take over Iraq will greatly increase the resources they have at their disposal when they do. Allowing them to topple the Iraqi government in not an option.

As for letting others deal with the problem, that too is a bad strategy. Who would intervene? None of the neighboring ME countries have both the means and the political will to do it. The fact that none of our former partners in Iraq are stepping forward now is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the facts or the urgency of stopping ISIS. Letting others deal with the problem means that nothing would be done and ISIS would likely take over Iraq.

The problem of Islamic Fundamentalism is not going away whether we fight them now or not. Their goal is strict Islamic rule everywhere and they are not going to coexist with us. That is a reality that you seem unwilling to face. You're also unwilling to deal with the consequences of allowing ISIS to gain the resources they'll get by taking over entire countries, like Iraq. How may more countries like Iran would it take to convince you?

Sorry to be dismissive of your posts; you obviously put effort into writing them. I've heard your exact arguments before and I just don't buy them.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
9. The U.S. has forfeited our ability to act with our military in Iraq
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 04:52 PM
Aug 2014

. . . with any moral authority, or without a devastatingly counterproductive effect. I don't think that asking the question you raised solves that problem.

I don't have a pat answer for what to do about the insurgency there, but I'm certain that we can't help keep Iraqis safe from the effects of our militarism in their country any more than we did when our forces were fully deployed under Bush.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
13. My question again what can be done, if the steps Obama has taken then what
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 05:16 PM
Aug 2014

Would you suggest, maybe you have the answer.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
17. I see several regional countries, neighbors and others already in place and some already operating
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 05:48 PM
Aug 2014

. . .sitting back and letting the US deepen and extend our military involvement. They will only be challenged to step up when we stand down. Think of what Iran is doing, with every interest in seeing their nemesis get bogged down again. Think of what Russia is doing, half-stepping it while they do the same as Iraq. Think of what the Saudis should do as we give them high-tech military equipment and planes. Think of how Syrian fighters were the ones responsible for actually moving the Kurdish civilians off of the mountain and across their border - then consider our nation's adversarial policy toward them.

There a reason why these nations are letting Pres. Obama commit our military to this mission which he and the Pentagon are opportunistically ignoring others responsibility for. I suppose its because they believe they can sell this to the American people incrementally or push it past our Congress with 'humanitarian' justifications at every turn.

It's always something . . . Is that the only argument? "Then what?" If that's the case, if that's the justification, then we will commit our military to ANYTHING at anytime.

I'm done with the excuses that military action in Iraq is this dubious, nebulous defense of 'national security.' That's a leap which assumes that there aren't reasons or persuasions the U.S. can assert for other nations to step up.

Understand, once and for all, that we are NOW fighting the effects and consequences of the last round of U.S. military involvement there. It's an endless cycle which is only perpetuated through opportunism and and unwillingness from the president to make the kind of commitment to press for other nations to get involved.

Look at the way he/we rushed in as Russia began sending planes and pilots. Look at the way he/we foolishly rushed in with our military to defend or protect Kurds when they KNEW WELL that the Syrian fighters could and likely would take up the task. 130 military advisers sent in at the last minute when almost EVERYONE knew that some 45,000 were already spirited off the mountain into Syria.

No more than 20 or so of the 130 he rushed in camping on the mountain overnight to make like they we looking for more refugees. Tell me how many were sent home as he promised the next day.

The U.S. intention is to OWN the territory it holds and is defending with air strikes to protect our nation's OWN interest in using Iraq as a base of operations in their own co-opting of Bush's 'war on terror;' from the 'expanding' CIA base of operations in Irbil, to defense of the oilfields in the Kurdish region from whoever we're keeping from acquiring them; to whatever we want to see happen in Baghdad.

You want a solution? Tell the WH, the Pentagon, and the CIA to let their Iraq prize go. If not, commit your next generation to more self-actualizing defense of those prerogatives there.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
19. I hate war also, invading Iraq took the cork out of the bottle which was keeping a thumb on Iran
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:00 PM
Aug 2014

But the safety net is gone now. Now we have new issues to face, if someone could come up with a viable plan to stop the crazy actions I would love to hear it.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
24. I just gave you one. Get the neighbors and regional countries surrounding them involved
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:16 PM
Aug 2014

. . .in that defense. Commit ourselves to that effort, rather than simply (opportunistically) insisting that we're the only ones able to do it.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
27. This would be good, perhaps allowing Iraq to return before it was joined together.
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 06:44 PM
Aug 2014

I really do not see peace in the Middle East in my lifetime, they hate the different groups like the TP hates others here. I hope and pray for peace all the time.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
11. If the dam fails it might start to look like a humanitarian problem
Mon Aug 18, 2014, 05:06 PM
Aug 2014

in Iraq, in terms of flood and water supply and agriculture. Just sayin'.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»President Obama: More hum...