No boots on the ground ...

[lumberjim]

he's a man of few words

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

he's a man of few words

Hall of Fame

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=911419&postcount=619

[tw]

Turkey demonstrates a problem we have created. Turk tanks sit just outside the Syrian village of Kobane (Kurdish name for that town). And will do nothing to rescue the town from ISIS. Turks refuse unless the US leads an attack completely with no fly zones.

This is the bull created by a America's previous 'world policeman' actions. We have no business involved in a war that Turk, Kuwaiti, Israeli, Jordanian, Iraqi, Saudi and Lebanese soldiers should be fighting.

Turkey is a glaring example of a problem in so many parts of the world. They must take responsibility for their own regions. The African Union is one example of nations attempting to do so. Many other nations have chosen to help under a UN flag. So many if not most nations in this world need to learn about an important word - responsibility.

Now, let's assume Turkey does move to defend Kobane. What happens if ISIS then attacks Turkey. Is the US, Canada, and much of Europe now obligated to attack ISIS under a NATO flag?

What happens if ISIS attacks Turkey without provocation as they have Iraq? Again, must NATO now declare war as required by NATO articles whereby an attack on one is an attack on all? Yes.

An intelligent ISIS would not. But intelligence is not always found in extremists.

[crweeks64]

tw, according to Panetta and Gates (Hillary too) we should not have been so quick to abandon Iraq. However, we are where we are. The whole Turkey/NATO thing is intriguing. Could Obama be brought into a conflict he has no intention of seriously being involved with in the first place? Wow!

[tw]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

tw, according to Panetta and Gates (Hillary too) we should not have been so quick to abandon Iraq.

We did not decide to leave. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, they all but demanded we leave. We defined what was required to stay. Both nations refused to provide those guarantees or cooperation. So both nations are now learning that their leader screwed up by all but forcing the US to leave. We did not make mistakes. They did.

Best way to avoid getting dragged into a war too early is to demand the 'powers that be' act responsibly. We did that in the Balkans, in Kuwait, in southern Sudan, and even learned a lesson; left Somalia to the AU and Kenya. By demonstrating restraint, cooperation from Iran even resulted. Also caused Assad to surrender all his chemical and biological weapons when Obama successfully used his 'crossing a red line' threat. Restraint gave a 'cross a red line' major significance. A solution properly executed so that we again avoided massacring American soldiers for no purpose.

Sometimes the 'powers that be' fail to take responsibility. Europe should admit same in the Balkans. Only then did the US get involved. After many massacres. We delayed; giving Europe plenty of time to solve the Balkans. Then the US response was so sudden, blunt, shocking, and therefore so successful. Milosevic even negotiated himself out of office. Because we delayed long enough, then the US led a complete and sweeping solution without any combat.

Same solution occurred in Haiti. Responsible use of military force meant no combat and a 100% final solution.

Yes we could get drawn in. But the longer we wait - ie give Turkey, the Saudis, et al time to take responsibility - then the easier and less expensive will be a final and hopefully successful solution.

We should never be drawn into any war until after the 'powers that be', without doubt, screw up. Only then do conditions to justify military deployment exist. Only then does our delayed and sudden response have maximum effect. Only then do we have expectations of success. Then we are not being drawn into a war on THEIR terms.

Yes we could get drawn in. But on OUR terms with best odds for success.

[crweeks64]

tw, We made a reasonable request for immunity for our troops actions while being an occupying force but Iraq played hardball and balked. The fact remains we quickly and gladly walked away from negotiations instead of hanging in there and making it work another way. In fact, Maliki suggested the President insure immunity through executive order but I think Obama rightly refused. Still it was not an insurmountable sticking point. Let's be fair and clear about that.

[tw]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

Still it was not an insurmountable sticking point. Let's be fair and clear about that.

An insurmountable obstinacy by Maliki was obvious even when Holbrook tried to get him to be cooperative. The resulting venom was significant that years previous A man (Holbrook) who had a long history of solving major problems (including a war) by negotiation could not even get Maliki to listen. Maliki was obstinate to the point of insurmountable. Much of what we accomplished was done without his approval.

In Vietnam, we had a similar problem. So a coup was authorized. Unfortunately a coup did little to solve that problem. Without lessons from Nam, we might have tacitly approved of a coup in Afghanistan. Because Maliki would only do for his country what also personally benefited himself.

But then Maliki was taught his politics from two hour video lectures by George Jr. He was our creation. He would not change even when shocked to learn Americans were actually leaving..

Obama was indecisive by not authorizing a coup in Afghanistan.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by crweeks64

Still it was not an insurmountable sticking point. Let's be fair and clear about that.

Obama, as you said yourself, rightly refused. Iraq said my way or the highway, so we left. I guess that makes it as insurmountable as it gets, doesn't it.