International, Military, Politics, Society

Once Again Into The Breach: U.S. Shipping More Weapons and Preparing More Military Aid To Iraq

??????????????????6286571246_4906fa443e_bThe United States is mulling further intervention in Iraq as government forces flee Al Qaeda-linked insurgents and the country appears teetering on chaos. While the Administration is not ready to commit boots on the grounds, we may be moving toward a further influx of hundreds of millions or billions in military aid and even air strikes. As ISIS insurgents are seizing U.S. weaponry, the U.S. has already started to flood the country a new massive shipment of new free weapons.

Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant or ISIS is on a roll and nearing the capital. It is an al-qaeda linked terrorist group following the Wahhabi movement, the extreme religious view advanced by our ally Saudi Arabia.

So let’s take stock. We replaced a dictator based on lies in a massive invasion ordered by George W. Bush. We then spent over $2 trillion (the cost is over $4 trillion when you include Afghanistan). Both President Bush and President Obama continued to pour hundreds of billions of dollars in the country despite massive corruption and billions that simply disappeared. At the same time we have been cutting back on our own educational, environmental, scientific, and social programs due to a lack of money. Consider what $4 trillion would have done.

More importantly, we have lost some 4,486 U.S. service members between 2003 and 2012. Thousands have been wounded, many with lifelong disabilities. Our leaders continued to pour troops into the country because no one wanted to admit that the war was a mistake or that we were losing to Islamic insurgents. We continued to lose people and spend trillions in the belief that we could reverse centuries of sectarian and social strife.

In the meantime, we became increasingly hated by many Iraqis and we opened the country not to Saddamists but Al Qaeda forces who moved into the area as an opportunity to fight America and take over large parts of the country. They are now seizing advanced US weaponry so we are again arming extremists. Now to make our disaster complete we not only have Al Qaeda taking control of areas but Iran has now reportedly sent in troops to fuel the Shiite/Sunni violence. It is offering as many as 10,000 Iranian troops.

It is another example of the economic principle of “path dependence”: we have so much invested that we cannot change course. So once again, we will open up our coffers until the last helicopter leaves from the roof from the Green Zone.

275 thoughts on “Once Again Into The Breach: U.S. Shipping More Weapons and Preparing More Military Aid To Iraq”

  1. Americans still believe that they can invade a Muslim country (or any other country), win at one point and then leave? After their last two adventures in Iraq and in Afghanistan (where I spent a year), there are still those that rally to send our young men and women there to be killed, maimed and lose their minds? Iraq is a place where both religion and politics have pitted citizens against citizens and will most likely never end that conflict. Doesn’t this country have enough problems already than to spend even more money on that place? How many years will be enough to insure peace there? What a tragic thought. I am not a great fan of Pres. Obama but I hope that he means it when he stated today that there won’t be US troops on the ground. Don’t get me started on the incredible waste of tax monies this will mean again. Most of you have mentioned the lives and injuries of American people in Iraq; what about the lives of all Iraqi men, women and children. The Sunni population fleeing Mosul have told the media they’d prefer to keep to the militias, brutal as they may be, to the government of Maliki. We never came even close to winning that war and we won’t by bombing the country once again. Only the military industrial companies will be the ‘winners’. The soldiers who fought there and want to return are out of their mind. Their commanders need to tell them the truth.

  2. The US-led Iraq enforcement was a continuous mission from the Gulf War through Operation Iraqi Freedom. Compliance with Iraq’s obligations, weapons and non-weapons related, under the UNSC resolutions – not the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons – was the cause of action for US-led military enforcement with Iraq. The basic legal authority was PL 102-1 (1991) and UNSC Resolution 678 (1990).

    Before PL 107-243 (2002), Congress reaffirmed President Clinton’s use of the military to enforce Iraq’s “full compliance”. [Hat tip to I, citizen]

    105th CONGRESS
    1st Session

    H. RES. 322

    Expressing the sense of the House that the United States should act to resolve the crisis with Iraq in a manner that assures full Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the destruction of Iraq’s capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and that peaceful and diplomatic efforts should be pursued, but that if such efforts fail, multilateral military action or unilateral United States military action should be taken.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    November 12, 1997

    Mr. LANTOS (for himself, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. GOSS, Mr. YATES, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. SISISKY, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. HORN, Mr. KING, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. ROTHMAN, and Mr. SHERMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
    …
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the United States House of Representatives–

    (1) that the current crisis regarding Iraq should be resolved peacefully through diplomatic means but in a manner which assures full Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding the destruction of Iraq’s capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction;

    (2) that in the event that military means are necessary to compel Iraqi compliance with United Nations Council resolutions, such military action should be undertaken with the broadest feasible multi-national support, preferably pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council; and

    (3) but that if it is necessary, the United States should take military action unilaterally to compel Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions.

  5. Nick Spinelli wrote “Sunni/Shiite war”

    It is sickly amusing that Islam, the religion of peace, has had a civil war raging from the death of Muhammad. Iraq always was a force-fit country from the legacy of the Versailles Treaty, France (there I go again), and Britain. Did you know that one of the proposals of the Versailles Treaty was to create Kurdistan, including the northern part of Iraq, the adjoining section of Turkey, and other bits? By the way, a good book to read on this and other subjects is “Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World” by Margaret MacMillan, the great-granddaughter of Lloyd George.

    “terrorist army that is organized, focused, and ruthless”

    That’s what makes me think this is an offshoot of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The other Islamist groups always employ guerilla tactics, but this is a battle.

    “We should assist the Kurds if they are attacked”

    Quite right. And given that the Kurdish section contains most of the oil, we could kill a few birds with one stone.

  6. Nick Spinelli
    Hilarious. Pee your pants funny, watching people flee for their lives.
    = = =
    Hardly funny at all… when you think about it, Nick. really.
    America keeps setting up the dominoes and keeps blaming others for setting the whole thing off! Why are we setting up dominoes in the first place?

    Of course it’s planned… Set ’em up and knock ’em down.

  7. Bob,Esq,

    PL 102-1.

    From http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#wasOIFlegal

    P.L. 102-1, passed on January 12, 1991, stated, “The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.”

    UNSC Resolution 678, adopted on November 29, 1990, stated, “[a]cting under Chapter VII of the Charter . . . [a]uthorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

    From http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31641.pdf

    [The] Clinton Administration cited the original authorization enacted by Congress before the Gulf war in 1991 (P.L. 102-1) as a legislative basis for using force against Iraq as the crisis over U.N. weapons inspection heated up in 1998. 34

    34 P.L. 102-1 has no expiration date, and according to the press, some specialists in international law have expressed the view that it provides sufficient authority to use force against Iraq. Philip Shenon, “U.S. To Use ‘91 Law to Justify Air Strikes on Iraq,” The New York Times, February 4, 1998.

  8. JT posted a topic on the “four blood moons” for conversation months ago. Is it actually happening?

  9. Aridog, Several of my Iraqi Christian friends have said, the only thing that prevented this Sunni/Shiite war was the presence of Christians. Both sects hate Christians even more than each other. I think Jordan is next, then Israel. Oil bolted to $107 today. Maybe the LOOOOOOONG deliberation on the Keystone pipeline will need to be decided soon. Obama has been stalling until after the November elections. What has amazed me about Obama is how deliberative and long he processes decisions and then gets it flat ass wrong. Maybe he needs to read, Blink.

  10. Hilarious. Pee your pants funny, watching people flee for their lives.

  11. It shall be interesting to hear the Politico’s spin helping Iran as a good thing…
    … Iran / Iraq war redux III and guess whose side we’re on this time?

  13. UGH… facepalm!
    The 2002 Iraq AUMF Almost Certainly Authorizes the President to Use Force Today in Iraq (and Might Authorize the Use of Force in Syria)[UPDATED]
    By Jack Goldsmith | Friday, June 13, 2014
    http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/06/the-2002-iraq-aumf-almost-certainly-authorizes-the-president-to-use-force-today-in-iraq-and-maybe-syria/

    […] the 2002 Iraq AUMF states in part: “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to . . . defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” The relatively narrow original purpose of this statute is captured in its preambular language. But what counts is the operative text of the authorization. That text gives the President the discretion to determine when the use of the U.S. Armed Forces is necessary and appropriate to defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq (not the government of Iraq, not Saddam Hussein, but Iraq), and authorizes the President to use those forces in that circumstance. It is not at all hard to interpret this statute to authorize the President to use force today to defend U.S. national security from the threat posed by the ISIS-induced collapse of Iraq.

    Also note that, in contrast to some previous AUMFs, the 2002 AUMF has no geographical limitation.
    (continued)

  14. Max,
    I hope they have a really good escape plan in that embassy in Bagdhad. Maybe they secretly have some sort of “Beam me up Scotty” technology in that shiny new embassy. I think they should leave now while the going’s good, but it wouldn’t indicate much confidence in the future of Iraq, I suppose.

  16. Winning hearts and minds…
    … Through destructive forces.

    There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until America arrived…
    … Co-ink-a-dink?

    Healing comes through accountability…
    … And until our criminals are held to account, the suffering will continue to be delivered unto those who never deserved our invasion.

    Wait till the ISIS get to the Green Zone… Then there’ll be boots on the ground.
    Why? We didn’t spill all that money into the largest embassy for another Benghazi*, did we?

    *drink

  17. Jerry….you just stipulated my biggest concern. I have good friends in Israel, all of whom I cherish.

    My nick might fool someone who doesn’t know me, but “Ari” was my favorite dog of all time. I am really a guy named Richard and a cussed Irish Catholic 😉 Been to war, fell in love with people half a world away, and have never outgrown my childish wishes for peace in our time.

  18. Aridog & Nick,

    We agree, this is turning out as a Sunni Vs Shiite show down. The winner gets all.
    But if it’s ISIS, then they have a “To Do List” and Israel is at the top of that list.

  19. Nick ….ISIS/ISIL may be the almost final Caliphate form of what began as the patchwork Al Qaeda. It is usually the case when a terrorist group acquires enough power to suppress all others or demand subservience. More often than not the winner kills off the less influential. Witness Vietnam 1954-1959, when our allies, the Viet Minh, from 1941-45 took over in Hanoi. Jules Roy has several pieces published on the evolution.

    I am distressed because I believe we helped enable ISIS/ISIL thinking something would be better than the Alawite Asad….Alawites being a sect of Shiite. Now they sweep in to Iraq, and potentially a maelstrom when they run up against Shiite Iran.

    I would love it if someone could convince me I am wrong.

Comments are closed.