Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

"Obama says he will not send troops to Iraq but is considering ‘other options’"

He won't because he can't.

The Army's broken and we can't put boots on the ground (though mercs, maybe). That was the lesson of Syria, is also the lesson of Ukraine, and it looks like ISIS paid attention.

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

The Army's broken and we can't put boots on the ground

You really believe that? That Obama secretly wants to re-invade Iraq but he only isn't because the U.S. military has mysteriously lost its capability of using ground forces since the Afghanistan surge 2 years ago?

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

Politically can't. Not physically. If he cared enough -- let's say he had a re-election at stake -- the world's largest military thirteen times over could do whatever it wanted.

As far as I'm concerned, it's good that he "can't."

Submitted by lambert on

.... (quote) so I'd say there' s nothing secret about what he wants. To be fair, Obama's better at whacking US citizens without due process, or blowing children at wedding parties to pink mist than larger operations, but surely the impulse is there?

The Army keeps losing wars. Certainly part of that is that the leadership is corrupt, but there are many, many signs of demoralization, including especially suicides. And the Afghan surge was some kind of victory, instead of something the winners waited out? Right. Get back to me when there's a victory parade.

Scratch an Obot, find a militarist. You always come sniffing around whenever Obama does anything especially egregious; it's funny.

Submitted by EGrise on

All the things you say are true, and I would add another factor: Obama wants to be the guy who got us out of Iraq, not the guy who got us back in. One of the few times when his concern about his legacy actually works in our favor.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

Sorry, but that's a pretty incoherent response to what I asked. I mean, I was asking a straight yes-or-no question. Quoting your own theories about why Obama is a bloodthirsty monster doesn't give me an answer. Mentioning that the U.S. military is demoralized, corrupt, and hasn't won any wars lately, doesn't answer the question either.

Then comes your implicit charge that I'm a militarist. (Scratch an Obot, find a militarist. You always come sniffing around whenever Obama does anything especially egregious; it's funny.). Huh? On what basis, do you have for that? I mean I have been commenting here about stuff on occasion for years. I have my own blog which has been active longer than this one has. There are thousands of posts that give my views on all kinds of things floating around the intertubes. I challenge you to cite anything that I have ever written that is at all pro-military adventure of any kind.

But of course you won't do that, because that would mean giving a direct answer to my question. You haven't done that with my initial comment, so why would you now?

Not to get too personal, but lately I have found myself occasionally defending you. Quite a lot of people think you are the stupidest blogger in left blogistan, but even though I have my issues with you (and, I must admit, have once or twice used the verb "to Lambert" in certain circles), I didn't think the folks at LGM et. al. were being fair. And then I ask you a simple question and get a bunch of semi-random "look at all the bad shit the preznit does!!!" followed by the implication that I am a pro-killing Obot. Honestly, when you treat your commentators like that, it's hard not to think that maybe you aren't able to maintain a simple rational discussion.

Anyway, end of personal jab. I apologize for it. But it's hard to think of anything else when I ask a pretty straightforward question and end up with the above for an answer.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I have not been following the latest, but I do know that Obama did not want to leave Iraq and only left after Maliki demanded that Obama adhere to the agreement that had been worked out with Bush.

As to the military, it is certainly broken. Deaths from suicides exceed deaths from combat. Veterans are also committing suicide in historically high numbers. That is the tip of the iceberg. Read the trade press for the military, Army Times, Defense News, etc. There are many many articles about the moral and mental health problems in the military. Add that to the fact that Obama wants to extend our occupation of Afghanistan, and you realize how overstretched our military is.

As for CorrenteWire's differences with lefty blogistan, we have been vindicated on every point. The Public Option was a roach motel for progressive energy. Obama has broken every promise. And we have developed a different readership. This is a community for people who have left the Democratic party or are standing at the shallow end of the pool.

upyernoz's picture
Submitted by upyernoz on

I have not been following the latest, but I do know that Obama did not want to leave Iraq and only left after Maliki demanded that Obama adhere to the agreement that had been worked out with Bush.

I agree, but that wasn't what I was asking Lambert about.

As to the military, it is certainly broken. Deaths from suicides exceed deaths from combat. Veterans are also committing suicide in historically high numbers. That is the tip of the iceberg. Read the trade press for the military, Army Times, Defense News, etc. There are many many articles about the moral and mental health problems in the military.

That's true. But high suicide rates for veterans etc. have been a major problem since these series of wars started in 2001. That doesn't seem to me like something that a President who was determined to go to war would be all that concerned about. The bottom line is that the suicidal, PTSD-sufferers, and other traumatized soldiers are usually discharged from the military, to be replaced with fresh recruits who don't (yet) have those issues. It's quite a stretch from saying that military has some major issues to claiming that it is not capable of engaging in a military conflict at all.

Add that to the fact that Obama wants to extend our occupation of Afghanistan, and you realize how overstretched our military is.

That's only sort of true. I mean, he did not have to announce the plan to fully withdraw if he did not want to. Especially with the military establishment so strongly opposed. I personally think that he would prefer to keep some U.S. forces in Afghanistan, but he is not so determined to make them stay that he is going to keep them there no matter what.

As for CorrenteWire's differences with lefty blogistan, we have been vindicated on every point.

Um, let me just say that is hardly the view of anyone outside of this very small community. Frankly, the tone of "we were fucking right all along!!!!" that is regularly on display here doesn't help your credibility very much. I mean, everyone is wrong sometimes. And a lot of what Lambert writes about certain issues is semi-laughable, IMHO. But he will never acknowledge such criticism. And whenever I ask a fairly straightforward question, I simply get dismissed as an "Obot" rather than addressing what I actually said.

This is a community for people who have left the Democratic party or are standing at the shallow end of the pool.

You can define your community however you want. It's not really my concern. I personally am not interested in being part of any team. I just would rather form my own opinions and ask my own questions. Not everyone likes to do stuff that way. Which is why Lambert seems to obsessed with deciding who is a REAL PROGRESSIVE and interprets even the slightest difference of opinion with anything he writes as Obot-ism. On the other hand, Lambert's quirks are what makes this blog entertaining, even when I think it veers into weird dogmatism.

In any case, I'm still not sure if Lambert actually thinks that the U.S. military is incapable of intervening militarily in Iraq. (and thus Obama's statement that he would not send troops back to Iraq does not earn him any Mitzvah points so that Lambert can still insist that the president is the biggest asshole who ever assholed in assholistan). If so, his position seems pretty absurd to me. Which is why I am not certain if he really believes it, or if he just said that for rhetorical reasons (and so he can maintain his "Obama is not just an Asshole but also a cartoonish villain" thesis)

Submitted by lambert on

... world history gives us many examples of assholes even more ginormous.

Yes, I think the army is broken and we can't "put boots on the ground." We can do drones, or bomb shit, or send in specialists, or throw money at thugs, or even at several factions of thugs simultaneously, but not "boots on the ground." Surely imperial overstretch is not a new concept?

Glad I could entertain you. The feeling is entirely mutual. I think I'm going to be tightening up on trolls and Obots, because I can't invest time in them anymore and I have other stuff to do. In fact, I think I'll grant your suicide request right now. Good-bye.

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

...quickly on the ground. ISIS seems to be gaining territory fast. It wouldn't surprise me that O is waiting to see if there is any point in acting.
I say, let the Iraqis fix themselves; it couldn't possibly be worse than what we did to them in 2003.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

I agree with Robert Fisk, that Iraq is being punished for being Shiite and pro-Iran and pro-Syria. After inflicting Maliki on Iraq for so many years, the US puppet, the US puppet is now not behaving so the amoral US will let the Iraqi people once again be in terrible harm's way because it is all just one big colossal war video game to these maniacs as the ends justify the means lets them enable a ferocious army of terrorists that is being bankrolled by Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. Regime change obsession is all, and turning the entire Middle East into a nightmarish "caliphate" is worth their dreams of ultimate full spectrum dominance which is amoral and full of danger they are choosing to minimize since protecting human life is not a priority. The evil here is gargantuan. Again, human lives and international law and cooperation with other nation states mean less and less to the war addicts. All nation states must be subservient to US will, otherwise they are toast. I am including all war addicts, McCain, Obama, Hillary. And the mainstream media will spin and confuse the propaganda and so many of us good little peaceniks will help them excuse Obama for throwing Iraq under the bus, for stabbing another country in the back -- a country that the US destroyed once and is helping to re-traumatize by covertly enabling monsters. As citizens argue Obama is being weak on the war on terror or being suddenly more progressive in not fighting. It is all a lie from the liar in chief. The dirty wars are gargantuan. Imho.