ISIS Holds Parade in Mosul, Encircles Baghdad

ISIS held a victory parade in Mosul today. You can view all the photos here. It was a big turnout, and lasted into the evening. Noticeably absent from the photos: women. I saw one figure that looked like a female in all of them (to the right of the headlights) and given her trench coat and purse and black head scarf, I'm wondering if she wasn't a reporter.

ISIS got whacked by Syrian jets near Al-Qa'im and Rutbah today. They lost some men, including Sheikh Abdul Majeed al Otaibi (@OT_48 on Twitter). They also were able to take two towns south of Baghdad, Iskandariya and Mahmoudiya.

The U.S. has sent its first group of advisors to Iraq. Here's the transcript of the Defense Department briefing.[More...]

ISIS says it didn't kidnap or kill the judge who ordered the hanging of Saddam Hussein. They say he was kidnapped by the Men of the Army of Naqshbandi, ex-Saddam Hussein loyalists, or Baathists. ISIS and Naqshanbandi are allies, but they don't always get along. There were reports of them fighting in Hawija and Western Kirkuk days ago.

ISIS is in the process of encircling Baghdad. They say they turned the oil refinery at Baiji over to the tribes to run. They posted photos from the battle. They also say the Euprhates River is dangerously low. They say it's never been this low and they suspect Turkey is withholding large quantities of water from entering the dam to thwart ISIS. (Arabic article with photos here.)

ISIS isn't happy with what the Kurds have been telling the media.

The New York Times has an article on how ISIS tells whether someone is Sunni or Shiite.

If you're wondering whether the Iraqis now subject to ISIS rule are happy about it, the answer is, it depends which news report you read. Example: the LA Times vs. Reuters -- both on the topic of the how those in Mosul are reacting to the ISIS takeover.

Many ISIS tweeters are saying the Iraqi Special Forces will attack Tal Afar within a few days, with the help of U.S. military advisors in Baghdad.

< World Cup Day 13 | World Cup Day 14 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Maliki will not reach out Sunnis (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 05:37:04 AM EST
    He has also cut off the Kurds too.  And we send in advisors and activate special forces and a joint operations unit?  Why would we do this?

    I think he is betting (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:40:38 AM EST
    That when push comes to shove we will pull his chestnuts out of the fire.

    Trying to decide if I disagree.


    I think we are just there to protect (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:43:47 AM EST
    Oil interests in the South now.

    Where is our conscience siding with Maliki?


    I mean if we want to come out and (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    Say Sunnis deserve second class citizenship after we "fixed" their country we should have the balls to stand on a podium and say it.  All of actions have said it.  Time to own it.

    Well, Kerry is pushing the Kurds to (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:11:24 PM EST
    stick with Maliki and not form their own country. Seems to me that the U.S. is pushing unity in a place where such a thing cannot, at this point in time, survive.

    As much as I hate for this to be true, it does seem that in the countries where the borders have been drawn, usually by the U.K. or the U.S. or sometimes France, without regard for centuries old tribal borders and hostilities, can only be held together by a strong-arm leader who has no qualms about doing whatever he must to rule. Think Tito. Think Sadam.


    The US may need to decide very soon (none / 0) (#7)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:24:49 AM EST
    whether Obama's desires to force Maliki to be more inclusive and Obama's principle not to put troops on the ground or use US planes, are worth allowing Baghdad to fall (or be encircled in a siege) and Iraq to be splintered, perhaps semi-permanently.

    Obama's desires/principles, combined with indecision, are allowing ISIS to take control of more important territory and assets (including weapons, oil, and cash).

    Of course, the flip side consideration is what benefits, except for the short run, would increased US support accomplish.

    Longer range, if ISIS takes over considerable territory and assets on a more long term basis, increases instability in the region and becomes a training ground for terrorism against the West, as well as other countries in the region; what significant long-term results will impact the US and the West.

    And then there's oil stability and the impact on the world economy.

    Lots of very difficult decisions and considerations.


    Look, we destroyed all Iraqi unity (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:38:57 AM EST
    Civil war is going to have to burn itself out.  History is just one tale after another after another of THAT FACT

    Two things (none / 0) (#10)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:56:51 AM EST
    First, we didn't destroy all Iraqi unity. We removed a dictator who almost everyone thought was a bad guy and who suppressed the majority with force. Maybe that's your idea of unity, but it's not mine.

    Second, the US must make decisions for itself, its allies and the world now and look forward. US decisions now shouldn't be based on what we did or didn't do, or what we did or didn't cause. The current situation is what it is, and we need to deal with it.

    Yes, of course, we should look at history, to help make decisions now. The Middle East is a very complicated and difficult place. I don't think that means throwing up our hands, and saying we can't or won't help or can't figure out what to do (so we'll do nothing)?

    What would you do? Would you just ignore the Middle East?

    Was Obama right to let Syria go for the past several years--and let ISIS develop and gain military skills there? And develop its organizational game plan.


    You could (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    say that going back 60 years or more nothing we have done in the middle east has helped in the least and actually you could argue that it has made things worse for them and for us. Sometimes meddling in not such a good thing and does not make us safer and actually makes the world more dangerous for us.

    Green26 writes (2.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:28:44 PM EST
    What would you do? Would you just ignore the Middle East?

    What would they do??

    Nothing and then blame Bush for the bad results.


    As opposed to ... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 08:15:12 AM EST
    .... making things much, much worse and blaming Clinton.



    No...you did not just (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 08:01:31 PM EST
    Remove a dictator, if that is all you remember you have lost your mind.  We did something we (BushCo) proudly called de-Baathification.  Like that was a good thing.  

    The sectarian violence that followed ended in uncountable deaths of Iraqis.  Those who attempt to count say anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000.  Worst of all, it was all predicted by sociologists and told to that administrations face that this would happen.

    Second, it isn't our country.  We can't deal with what isn't ours.

    Third, your military was stop-lossed and had to remain so until President Obama pronounced the date of our leave taking.  You do not have a volunteer military willing to go back to Iraq.  You just don't.  Nor do you have the money.  You just don't.


    Those things came with the territory (none / 0) (#14)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    of removing the dictator. What good what it do to remove the dictator and then leave his minority and tyrannical party in place (to continue the regime and tyranny? Sure it's easy to second guess after the fact and declare that mistakes were made.

    Removing dictators and their senior people in many of these countries leads to instability. Look at Libya.

    The US does things in other countries all the time. Jeez, where have you been? The "it's not our country" argument certainly doesn't fly with the US or me.

    I don't understand your last para, but I'm not advocating going back in by anything I've said. The US and Obama should never have pulled out of Iraq when and much as it did. Obama deserves the direct blame for what is happening in Iraq now. Pulled out too fast and incorrectly, and let ISIS develop in Syria.

    You can try to hide your head in the sand, but the reality and risks of what are happening in the Middle East and the world continue.


    What you don't understand obviously (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 09:34:15 PM EST
    Is that Obama had to pull out.  His troops had been driven beyond endurable stress.

    Why are you doing nothing about the 22 veterans who suicide everyday in this country....most of them veterans of this war?

    How can you be so out of touch with how broken and exhausted everyone was....and stop-lossed?

    Obama had to end it before it ended his military.

    You did not have the military to stay.  And I am so offended that many of you cannot seem to remember that, nor are you out there fighting to repair the VA and help these poor kids you did this to.  You all stand around and point a finger at Obama while the kids you drug into this and damaged just die and die and die.  You have no shame.  You are obviously out of your mind.


    Sorry, your statements on the US military (none / 0) (#17)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:30:47 PM EST
    and the military in iraq just aren't accurate. My son was there twice. I know lots of his buddies, including many new military buddies he went in law school with. To my knowledge, not a single one of them would agree with your statements that Obama had no choice other than to pull out.

    Yes, war and the recent big wars were tough, and many kids have been damaged or killed. I assure you my wife and I didn't like it when we got the call saying our son had been injured in a rocket attack during this first deployment, with head injuries and a 4-inch deep shrapnel hole in his back.

    My family and especially my son support a number of groups including Wounded Warriors. We support all of our son's friends. What are you doing to support the vets?

    You just can't accept how badly Obama has goofed up some of this.  You need to move on, look forward, and help the country figure out what to do going forward. Pointing fingers and blaming everything on Bush is not going to help. By the way, how would you rate the VA and its leadership under Obama?


    I don't believe a word you just said (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:54:57 PM EST
    2nd, the stop loss, the lack those willing to serve in Iraq, is all documented.  This isn't a matter of opinion.

    Since this is the internet and nobody knows you are a dog you are free to say whatever.

    It's documented though


    Well, I guess we're even. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:55:32 PM EST
    I think most of what you said is wrong and not supportable by the facts.

    Were Cheney and you (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:05:46 AM EST
    Republicans right about anything with regard to Iraq?  

    No one should ever listen to your side again on foreign policy for at least a generation.

    Rand Paul knows this.


    I'm not a republican (none / 0) (#29)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:14:41 AM EST
    I am an independent and I supported Hillary over Obama, and Hillary is still my current favorite.

    My side? You obviously can even see far enough to know that many independents and others feel as I do, i.e. that the US, Obama and people like you need to look forward and figure out what is best.

    Doing nothing and blaming Bush is not good or effective US policy.

    Are you another head-in-the-sander?


    I have no patience (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:28:08 AM EST
    for ignorance of Iraq and past history.

    History makes a difference, my friend.  Something about repeating the mistakes of the past.

    Willful refusal to acknowledge historical precedent helped us get into Iraq in the first place.

    I support Hillary but she needs to not repeat the mistakes over Iraq.

    There is no reason for us to intervene and plenty of reasons to stay out......It is their country and their own troops cut and run.....We need to stay out.


    I too believe in looking at history, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:34:21 AM EST
    but the head-in-the-sand approach does not and will not work. Times and things have changed since the US invaded Iraq. People like you need to recognize where we are now and look forward. I don't know why the main answer of people like you seems to be that the US was wrong to invade Iraq, and now the US can and should ignore Iraq.

    Do you really believe that the US/Obama has been right to allow Al Qaeda and ISIS to build up and expand significantly in Iraq and ought to continue to ignore these things?

    The world is a dangerous and difficult place, and things appear to be getting worse and more complicated.


    Yes, stay out (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:40:05 AM EST
    How many times do I have to say it.  

    Things changed, so ignore history?

    I do not care if ISIS takes Baghdad.  

    I am taking the Netanyahu approach...You think he is someone who sticks his hand in the sand.

    You and Judith Miller.....what gullible clowns....Here we go again...  


    Fine (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:07:48 AM EST

    20 pages there...if you need more just let me know


    The article is interesting but (none / 0) (#49)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:02:01 AM EST
    largely not relevant to the discussion occurring at the time Obama decided to completely pull out. The article discusses massive amounts of troops in Iraq, not the 10,000, 20,000 or 40,000 or so that were being discussed at the time of Obama's complete pull out. Read Woodward's recent comments how generals were practically on their knees begging Obama to keep some troops in Iraq.

    Please don't try to tell us that the US couldn't have sustained this level of troops in Iraq. Also, look at the number of troops the US has had in Afghan since the Iraq pull out.


    Nothing had changed when he pulled out (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 06:59:29 AM EST
    In fact manpower problems in the military had further deteriorated.  What is your evidence that anything had improved or the compounded problems in readiness to actually protect OUR nation had been rectified?

    And my spouse is still serving (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:09:12 PM EST
    He is away from home right now while surgeons prepare to pull two titanium rods out of HIS disabled sons back.

    What else have we done?  Well we attempted to get one friend help while our son was in halo traction in Atlanta, but nobody would break into his house when he wouldn't answer the door.  We were 300 miles away, he suicided the next day.  So I guess you could say we failed there.

    A pilot my husband mentored has somewhat been successfully treated for extreme PTSD, he flew medivac, he has been released from service but needs much more psychiatric follow up care that is in very short supply.  I don't know if he'll make it or not.  I sure hope he does.

    My husband stayed up one night with a pilot newly returned from Iraq that they just threw a bunch of meds at and no counseling, no real support, he didn't even know or understand what was happening to him or why he couldn't sleep.  My husband met him at a children's bday party, saw the guy was falling apart, that was all it took.

    We have been asked that upon retirement if we would run a couple's support group here, because it is very hard sometimes to work through a lot of the war damage when it shows up in your marriage, but we have done a bit of it.  And we will, we will with a glad heart be tasked with that!  Is that enough for you?  Probably not, the thing most important to you is that I hate Obama.  What a sad simple fool you are!


    Looks good, but (2.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:28:49 AM EST
    now you need to work a bit on your facts and policy and get rid of the head-in-sand stuff. Ha.

    What you have to say to me (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:32:35 AM EST
    About what my family has been through, and what we will continue to process matters not one bit to me.  You do not matter.  If we allowed people like you to matter all you would do is continue to breed pain and suffering.  You do not matter.

    Uninformed troll (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:35:28 AM EST
    It would seem so (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:37:07 AM EST
    Look, you are the one who (none / 0) (#39)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:37:04 AM EST
    has been consistently rude to me, and completely mis-analyzed what I know about Iraq and what we have been through. And you still have little or no idea what my family have done for vets. Jeez, looks at your posts.

    I put up a link a very thorough (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:40:26 AM EST
    Writing on the subject full of end notes.  You gotta link about how healthy and the strength of our readiness when we were still in Iraq I would be glad to read it and shop it around to military sources for comment.

    You are not actually (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:45:17 AM EST
    saying anything except saying that those of us who oppose more intervention are sticking our heads in the sand.

    You are saying that Tracy is sticking her head in the sand about Iraq?  What a snotty refrain. Where did your learn to say that? Do I really have to take a stroll through right-wingnuttia to see the genesis of your repeated comment?  


    A little condesceding, no? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:34:43 AM EST
    Go read Hans Blix's two reports and show me how he was wrong and why no one listened to him then?

    Blix told Tony Blair (none / 0) (#43)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:44:37 AM EST
    a month before the Iraq invasion that, despite his growing doubts, he thought Iraq could still have illegal weapons. Google the articles on this. Looks like Blair did listen to Blix.

    Look at the actual reports (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:46:50 AM EST
    No WMD.  

    Who was right.  Who was wrong.  

    Why should anyone listen to anyone who has a track record of making such a stupid mistake?


    The reports said (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:48:56 AM EST
    they just needed more time to confirm that for sure there no WMD anywhere in Iraq....

    But the hawks just were so hot for war.


    The WMD argument (none / 0) (#47)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:52:50 AM EST
    should be judged at the time the decision to invade was made, not after the fact. Most western countries and their securities arms believed there were WMD's at the time of the invasion, as did many democrats in Congress who voted in favor of the Iraq invasion authority.

    A mistake was made, but there were lots of people involving in making and supporting what later became known as a mistake, i.e. the existence of WMD.


    You do not get it (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:59:29 AM EST
    The key is that a mistake was made....not the excuse making about why it was made.

    You are just repeating Fox talking points, about not blaming Bush...

    Yes, we should judge the decision whether to invade Iraq in light of real facts, not the fantasy and lies spewed at the time.

    Yes, you better believe, we should judge with hindsight because that way we avoid another monumental mistake.  


    Sorry, your analysis is terribly flawed (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:14:43 PM EST
    I'll go with the pithy response of Netanyahu on MTP recently: Don't get in the way when your enemies are killing each other.

    Israel is none too concerned about ISIS.  

    You completely ignore that this idea of getting rid of Saddam Hussein only served to strengthen Iran.  It was a strategic blunder of monumental proportions...

    Iran will soon enough balance or contain ISIS.  


    Hear Hear! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:17:14 PM EST
    If you feel not strengthening Iran (none / 0) (#31)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:21:41 AM EST
    was important before, why do you not now care about turning Iraq over to Iran now?

    Or, is this just more of the let's do nothing in Iraq and the Middle East and blame Bush strategy?


    Keep your facts straight (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:32:17 AM EST
    How are we turning Iraq over to Iran?

    Good grief. The sheer ignorance.

    Do you not get it?   Listen to the reactionary hawk Netanyahu.  Let them kill each other.

    If ISIS takes Baghdad, how is that turning Iraq over to Iran?

    Do you just want to fight everyone?  


    Iran's growing influence in Iraq (none / 0) (#50)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:12:10 AM EST
    in recent weeks, and the related concerns, are all over the internet and news. Don't know how you could be missing it. Weapons, special units, Quds Force troops, regular army being offered, money coming, from Iran to Iraq. It appears that this is one of the reasons that Obama is looking (hard and slowly) at his response options.

    Of course (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:14:45 AM EST
    What do you not get about ISIS and Iran being enemies?

    Lord love a duck.


    So what's your point? (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:20:59 AM EST
    You sure spew alot of short, irrelevant and not understandable stuff.

    My point is to stay out of Iraq (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 08:36:54 AM EST
    Was it really that much of a mystery?

    You have no point.  What is your solution?  You do not have one.  You are filled with talking points that are all about saying it is Obama's fault because he should be doing something, what that something is, you really don't know,  and that something is something you cannot articulate, but darn it, he should do something.

    What is your recommended course of action?   You will say we should look forward (can't blame Bush or Cheney) but then start the discussion by saying Obama did something wrong, so you do look back.

    So, all you have really said is we should look back a little bit, but not too far.  Nonsense.


    Thanks for being more articulate (none / 0) (#59)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 08:43:54 AM EST
    and just saying, finally, that your point is to stay out of Iraq (and admitting that you have little or no reason for that except that we shouldn't have gone in originally).

    My current view, subject to change as things change and develop, is that Obama should have been less asleep on this and at least acted several weeks ago by using strategic air strikes to half the advance of ISIS. Seemed like the obvious choice. Should have gotten advisors and special ops there sooner too. ISIS shouldn't be allowed to grab weapons, money, and territory. This is going to come back to haunt Obama and the US (and the West).


    No, no, no (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 09:09:58 AM EST
    The advisors and little bit of war does not work.  We have plenty of experience with that.

    Again, your point, as you have said is to criticize Obama--it his fault, but we should look forward too and not blame Bush.  Do you realize how funny that sounds?

    This was the inevitable result.  Iraq is an artificial country in the first place. No amount of tinkering is going to smooth over the Shia v. Sunni split.....

    And we should stay out now because both Shia Iran and Sunni ISIS are not friends of ours, benefitting either group is a bad idea. Let them fight it out between themselves....This is the Netanyahu position that you stick your head in the sand to ignore.

    You are a troll.  All you are saying is it is all Obama's fault.  I can hear that on Fox at anytime. You add nothing of substance to the discussion.    


    Perhaps what you have said you (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:27:55 PM EST
    Experienced is true.  If it is I am sorry for flying off the handle at you.  Misremembering the facts doesn't do your son justice though.  It is painful all that was lost, but we don't need lies to keep us warm.  What happens to Iraq does not matter in terms of what soldiers gave, because they gave for each other.  When it got really bad they were there for each other, Iraq was not their nation.

    But note that my views (none / 0) (#52)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:19:21 AM EST
    are significantly influenced by what I have learned, and am still learning frequently, from my son and his friends, who were all recently in the military or are still in the military. My son loved being part of the military (he was a Ranger, fought in Fallujah and Ramadi, and spent considerable time in Sadr City) and loved his buddies and was loyal to the people in his unit, but most of what he did was for his country.

    As one who knows (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 01:55:16 AM EST
    only too well, the only part of your comment I believe to be true is (your son) "loved his buddies."

    After too many horrible months of my tours in Nam, if anyone asked me, or, anyone in my Company, hell, in my Brigade, "are you fighting for your country?" we'd laugh in his face (to keep from spitting in it.) Country? they'd yell out in unison, like it was a comedy skit. "Who the hell got us into this god-awful, idiotic mess in the first place?"

    Here's an interesting little factoid you might like: One of the guys in my company was a mild-mannered young kid I had known from our school days back in the States. After a bunch of grueling, unbelievably stressful nights on patrol he finally "lost it." He said, "I can't stand dying in slow motion, so, kill me, or, give me a medal." With that he grabbed his automatic weapon, and, charged into the darkness alone.

    And, truth being stranger than fiction, my buddy, "Jimmy," who couldn't win a merit badge as a boy scout, was awarded The Congressional Medal of Honor after the events of that evening.

    Die for each other? Absolutely. Die for our country? You're kidding, right?


    The SOFA agreement (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:17:11 PM EST
    being negotiated was for something like 2,500 troops--basically nothing.

    Maliki would not give our troops immunity, so we had to withdraw.

    Let ISIS roll for all I care.    


    Not true (none / 0) (#30)
    by Green26 on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 12:18:58 AM EST
    The US just made a real effort in recent days and negotiated the immunity agreement it wanted. It's amazing what can be done when an administration actually makes an effort to do something.

    Hiding behind the excuse of having to pull out because we didn't, yet, have the agreement we wanted, is just yet another lame excuse.


    Completely not true (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 26, 2014 at 08:26:28 AM EST
    Hiding behind the excuse of having to pull out because we didn't, yet, have the agreement we wanted, is just yet another lame excuse.

    Yeah - those pesky nuisances called SOFAs ... so annoying.  Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of US citizens wanted us out, too.

    The US just made a real effort in recent days and negotiated the immunity agreement it wanted. It's amazing what can be done when an administration actually makes an effort to do something.

    Uhhhmmmm .... you think it might have had something to do with the Iraqi government being much more willing to agree to our conditions given the present circumstances?



    Stay out (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:18:48 PM EST
    We made the strategic mistake of going in in the first place.

    Do not repeat the error...Definitions of insanity and all that.


    If only it was a strategic mistake (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 11:21:03 PM EST
    For those who truly dragged the rest of us into it :)

    Foreign affairs weighs in (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:17:05 AM EST
     1/3 of all ethnic civil wars resume in 5yrs



    To be clear (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:24:00 AM EST
    I meant I was trying to decide if we WOULD do it not if we should.

    We should not.


    I think we are about to do (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2014 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    Something stupid