Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Essentially, this is a bad article (for some of the reasons outlined above) and that's an important point we're overlooking.

I'm not bitter against the Observer because they screwed up my subscription or anything like that

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Essentially, this is a bad article (for some of the reasons outlined above) and that's an important point we're overlooking.

I'm not bitter against the Observer because they screwed up my subscription or anything like that

I have this image of you pulling a Saturday Night Live version of Sean Connery and yelling "Bastad!" a lot.

Does anyone think there's any reasonable way that the US can completely pull back from the region as a whole?

Could we feasibly take a selectively isolationist stance on the middle east for, I dunno, 3-5 years?

 Ouze wrote:
I think you're moving the goalposts a bit now. You're saying it was Obama's fault that the Iraqi's refused to sign a new SOFA, despite a year of negotiating, because "he didn't try very hard"?

I'm not saying it's 100% Obama's fault - obviously the Iraqis bear responsibility for it as well. But it's a two-way street, and like I said, I think Obama was more than happy to cash out his "ended the war in Iraq" campaign promise credit. Do you not think that the negotiations at the time seemed a bit halfhearted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Also - now we're getting into the realm of speculation, obviously - I think what's happening now would have happened anyway regardless of how long we stayed. Ultimately the country is very divided and unless you get someone running it like Saddam Hussein did, those underlying faults will eventually rupture. Just my opinion, again.

I think it's possible that ISIS might have attempted an offensive, and they probably would have been successful in Syria, but had we still been in Iraq in any meaningful way, I don't think they would have made the successful gains into Iraqi territory that they have. Our staying might have also prevented or at least helped to mitigate the quick degradation of the Iraqi officer corps, something that had a significant effect on the Iraqi's defense falling apart when ISIS began their offensive.

 cincydooley wrote:
Does anyone think there's any reasonable way that the US can completely pull back from the region as a whole?

Could we feasibly take a selectively isolationist stance on the middle east for, I dunno, 3-5 years?

Yep.

 Frazzled wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Does anyone think there's any reasonable way that the US can completely pull back from the region as a whole?

Could we feasibly take a selectively isolationist stance on the middle east for, I dunno, 3-5 years?

Yep.

You dream, sir.

Pray tell why not? Amazingly, the region was no worse or better than before we came along.

Lets say we pulled our "not boots" on the ground out right now, quit bombing etc. RIGHT NOW?

Syria: Assad would finish the remaining non ISIL guerrilla groups and then move on ISIL. Turkey would be ticked but would be unlikely to invade Syria. If they did...meh.
Iran: would still be Iran.
SA: would still be SA.
Every place in between would still be a war zone until this phase of the Hatfield/McCoy "ME Edition" war burned out again (to be restarted in a few decades).

here's an interesting twist. What if Israel gave independence to Gaza/West Bank and then attempted to side with the Arabs against the Persians?

 cincydooley wrote:
Does anyone think there's any reasonable way that the US can completely pull back from the region as a whole?

Could we feasibly take a selectively isolationist stance on the middle east for, I dunno, 3-5 years?

What, with the pro-Israel lobby in Washington and John McCain threatening to Invade Syria every five minutes?

Good luck with that!

I've said it once, I've said it a million times, why o why won't somebody in Washington read about the British Empire and the Middle East?

You guys have a blueprint of what not to do, and still you screw it up.

America: get the hell out of the Middle East while you still can. It will drag you down, spit you out, and when you've been weakened, you'll hear the Chinese laughing at you as they take your number 1 spot as global superpower.

We left of lot of equipment in Iraq. We were expecting a SOFA (Agreement just for Ouze) to be signed. When it was known there was a high chance it was not going to happen we tried to get out as much as we could via roads and airlifts to Kuwait

 Hordini wrote:


Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum. The USA filled it as long as we were there, and Obama chose to vacate it, which helped set conditions for ISIS' offensive in Iraq.

Nonsense. ISIL took advantage of the situation in Syria as a result of their ongoing civil war and the weak nature of the Iraqi defense force. Having US presence would have only deterred their incursion into Iraq.

or it would have restarted the pre "bulge" conflict.

 Hordini wrote:
Do you not think that the negotiations at the time seemed a bit halfhearted?

I don't think they were halfhearted, merely patient.

Within a couple months of the deadline the US pressed quite hard for Iraq to take a stand on the issue of legal immunity for US troops. Some people cite this as the decision which killed negotiations, but the legal status of US soldiers had been on the table since negotiations began and Iraq always waffled on it. Given the amount of time Iraq had to develop and articulate a position on such a critical issue, it seems quite clear to me it was never going to agree to a SOFA that the US would like.

 juraigamer wrote:
Having US presence would have only deterred their incursion into Iraq.

Maybe. A continued US presence in Iraq would have been a powerful recruiting tool.

 Frazzled wrote:

SA: would still be SA.

That seems rather optimistic, given that ISIS is a Salafist group and there are ~4 million Saudi Salafis. I mean, I guess the Wahabists could turn against them, but no one really wants that kind of violence in Saudi Arabia.

Eh......think you got the wrong poster there Dogma

As for recruitment tool/deterrent we're about to see if that hold true in Afghanistan. If it does then maybe the same could have been said about Iraq. Though there is a big difference between the general population of Iraq and Afghanistan

 Jihadin wrote:
Eh......think you got the wrong poster there Dogma.

I did, twice. Which is weird, because I haven't quoted you in quite a while, and misquoted Hordini just before. Maybe I just misclicked?

Either way, fixed now.

 Jihadin wrote:

Though there is a big difference between the general population of Iraq and Afghanistan

Yeah, I've never gotten the impression that many people in Afghanistan are chasing a new Caliphate. This makes sense as, to wit, its was never a region particularly fond of being a part of a Caliphate.

 juraigamer wrote:

 Hordini wrote:


Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum. The USA filled it as long as we were there, and Obama chose to vacate it, which helped set conditions for ISIS' offensive in Iraq.

Nonsense. ISIL took advantage of the situation in Syria as a result of their ongoing civil war and the weak nature of the Iraqi defense force. Having US presence would have only deterred their incursion into Iraq.

I'm pretty sure that's what I said.

More disturbing news out today regarding the Middle East. The UN estimates at least 80,000 foreign fighters have participated in fighting in Syria and Iraq.

When these people go home, I'd be worried.

Even if I was an average gun owner in America, I'd still be worried, because battle hardened killers would be a tough proposition for any average armed citizen to take down, if they went on a rampage. We seen it in Paris not long ago.

I'm sure the military folk will back me up on this.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
More disturbing news out today regarding the Middle East. The UN estimates at least 80,000 foreign fighters have participated in fighting in Syria and Iraq.

When these people go home, I'd be worried.

Even if I was an average gun owner in America, I'd still be worried, because battle hardened killers would be a tough proposition for any average armed citizen to take down, if they went on a rampage. We seen it in Paris not long ago.

I'm sure the military folk will back me up on this.

Don't let them back in. Thats what countries around the world should be doing now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
More disturbing news out today regarding the Middle East. The UN estimates at least 80,000 foreign fighters have participated in fighting in Syria and Iraq.

When these people go home, I'd be worried.

Even if I was an average gun owner in America, I'd still be worried, because battle hardened killers would be a tough proposition for any average armed citizen to take down, if they went on a rampage. We seen it in Paris not long ago.

I'm sure the military folk will back me up on this.

Don't let them back in. Thats what countries around the world should be doing now.

It would be a hard sell trying to stop American citizens from entering America, especially if they went through multiple countries to cover their tracks.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
More disturbing news out today regarding the Middle East. The UN estimates at least 80,000 foreign fighters have participated in fighting in Syria and Iraq.

When these people go home, I'd be worried.

Well...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-mideast-crisis-britain-islamic-state-idUSKBN0MT0F720150402?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

Don't forget one thing about that crazy previous Irani president - he had absolutely zero power to actually do anything. Their president ranks below the Ayathollah and the religious council, and anything he tries to do they can shoot down if they don't like it. He was just a convenient scapegoat, making idiotic statements and shouting threats so the people didn't think too much about what's wrong at home.

The new president is negotiating because the real leaders allow it.

Spetulhu wrote:
Don't forget one thing about that crazy previous Irani president - he had absolutely zero power to actually do anything. Their president ranks below the Ayathollah and the religious council, and anything he tries to do they can shoot down if they don't like it. He was just a convenient scapegoat, making idiotic statements and shouting threats so the people didn't think too much about what's wrong at home.

The new president is negotiating because the real leaders allow it.

I think it's more likely the Iranians came to the table because the sanctions were biting hard. Which makes it all the more stranger why they eased up on them...

Anyway, is this a historic deal? Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I think it's more likely the Iranians came to the table because the sanctions were biting hard. Which makes it all the more stranger why they eased up on them...

The point of sanctions is to bring Leaders to the table.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Anyway, is this a historic deal? Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?

A nation who chants "Death to Israel", refuses to recognize their existence, and funds and supplies terrorist groups to attack Israel not only has had sanctions eased but also has improved standing on the world stage.

I think the rest of the Middle East's reaction to Iran will be interesting.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?

Yes, but no more than usual. Israel exists, essentially, at the behest of its foreign supporters; alarmism is required in its set of circumstances.

 dogma wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I think it's more likely the Iranians came to the table because the sanctions were biting hard. Which makes it all the more stranger why they eased up on them...

The point of sanctions is to bring Leaders to the table.

A cynic could say that the point of sanctions is to bring down a regime, which could have happened with Iran if the pressure was applied.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Anyway, is this a historic deal? Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?

A nation who chants "Death to Israel", refuses to recognize their existence, and funds and supplies terrorist groups to attack Israel not only has had sanctions eased but also has improved standing on the world stage.

I think the rest of the Middle East's reaction to Iran will be interesting.

We can pretty much guarantee that the Saudis will be on phone right now recruiting every available nuclear physician/engineer/worker under the sun!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A cynic could say that the point of sanctions is to bring down a regime, which could have happened with Iran if the pressure was applied.

When have sanctions brought down a regime?

 dogma wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A cynic could say that the point of sanctions is to bring down a regime, which could have happened with Iran if the pressure was applied.

When have sanctions brought down a regime?

The 1940s when the USA sanctioned Japan over China. As a result of feeling the squeeze, the Japanese ordered their carriers to set sail for Hawaii, and the rest is history...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
Don't forget one thing about that crazy previous Irani president - he had absolutely zero power to actually do anything. Their president ranks below the Ayathollah and the religious council, and anything he tries to do they can shoot down if they don't like it. He was just a convenient scapegoat, making idiotic statements and shouting threats so the people didn't think too much about what's wrong at home.

The new president is negotiating because the real leaders allow it.

I think it's more likely the Iranians came to the table because the sanctions were biting hard. Which makes it all the more stranger why they eased up on them...

Anyway, is this a historic deal? Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?

I'd bet good money Israel hits them within 12 months and SA and Egypt start their own programs within two years. With active centrifuges still operating? Come on this is the Chamberlain agreement of our time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

A cynic could say that the point of sanctions is to bring down a regime, which could have happened with Iran if the pressure was applied.

When have sanctions brought down a regime?

South Africa.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?

… no.
It will make their position a bit weaker when negotiating stuff, though.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?

… no.
It will make their position a bit weaker when negotiating stuff, though.

Dunno man... a fully armed and operational nuclear Iran is terrifying.