In a move reminiscent of the Taliban’s shocking destruction of the two massive ancient statues of the Buddha at Bamiyan in Afghanistan, ISIS militants are destroying sacred temples and art in Iraq in the name of Allah. This picture was posted on an affiliated website of their destruction of the tomb of the Prophet Jonah in Mosul. It appears that Jonah may have survived the whale but could not escape the raw hatred of ISIS. In the meantime, sectarian atrocities have continued with the discovery of 50 blindfolded bodies south of Baghdad.
It appears that we have spent $4 trillion in both countries and lost thousands of soldiers only to have the the rise of the Taliban of Afghanistan and now an even worse group take control of much of Iraq (in addition to have Iran now openly intervening in the Iraq).
In an area where murderous religious fanatics are common, ISIS stands out as a particularly grotesque group that justified mass killings and destruction as the work of truly faithful Muslim. They are destroying tombstones and holy places as they move across the country. Jonah’;s tomb was gleefully destroyed by sledgehammers despite it being revered by Muslims and Christians alike.
The attack is the latest in the ISIS’s violent rampage across Iraq.
The Sunni group rejects the veneration of tombs and relics so they actively destroy the holy places of Shia, Christians and others. We have seen such atrocities committed by other Muslim extremist groups in other countries. Jonah is called the Prophet Younis by Muslims. They also reportedly destroyed the shrine of the Prophet Seth (Shayth). Dozens of shrines and Shia mosques in Mosul and the town of Tal Afar have been destroyed. They have also killed at least three Sunni clerics in Mosul who refused to leave the city. They are Khattab Hassan, 43, Riyadh al-Wandi, 39, and 48-year-old Abdul Ghafoor Salman.
Source: Daily Mail
Bron
You did not mention the main agenda about the TEA party, which is to take our country back to the middle ages when a government was religion and religion was the government. Basically a new, Iran like country in the western hemisphere. The TEA party’s soul is religion and not smaller government. All they want is to make religion mandatory in schools, government and the streets for that matter … because so many people do not believe in god or are not religious. The TEA party wants to straighten them up … in the 21st century. Religion in personal and should stay like that and I hope TEA party will never ever be able to force it’s religion on people.
nikos – and you know this about the Tea Party because …?
Paul, you can believe any fairy tale you want to.
Eric wrote “I’m guessing you’re not a kid”
Certainly not and I start the clock in Iraq long before you do. We were quasi-allies with Iraq during its war with Iran. I remember being surprised when Iraq shot two missiles at the Stark because media reports painted Iraq as quasi-friendly. The captain did not return fire as he would have if Iraq had been our enemy. He was relieved of duty and retired for not defending his ship, in contrast to the captain of the USS Vincennes, who after killing 290 Iranian civilians on Iran Air 655, was given a medal by Bush I.
“Of course, your statement misses – my guess is deliberately”
As I said, you are partisan. Iraq is not a viable country without a dictator. Any neutral observer knows that. As soon as we left, the country would collapse, as we are seeing. Obama had two choices: continue the killing or pullout. You have some neo-con daydream that the war was winnable, but that flies in the face of Islamic history. Your boy Bush screwed up big-time by invading Iraq and eliminating the dictator holding the country together. I am fed-up with paying for neo-con mistakes.
“Eisenhower was a Republican President who stayed the course from a Democrat President”
Eisenhower entered the White House on January 20, 1953. Stalin died on 5 March 1953. The Korean War ended on July 27, 1953. Only a wild-eyed neo-con could interpret that as staying the course.
“resolve the toxic Saddam problem”
And what about other “toxic” problems? Why haven’t we invaded North Korea? Millions of people have been killed by the Kim family. Yet we invaded Iraq instead. I can only think of three reasons: racism against Asians, incompetence, or oil which the DPRK does not possess.
The U.S. created the toxic Saddam problem by partnering with Iraq to fight Iran. And we created the toxic Iranian problem by overthrowing their democratically elected leader in 1953 and murdering 290 civilians in 1988. And we created the toxic Afghanistan (and al-Qaeda) problem by arming Islamic nuts who were fighting the Soviets in the late 1970s and 1980s.
Read some history.
The #1 Paul wrote ” There is limited extra space on an aircraft carrier so I am sure a small amount of Secret Service went in advance.”
There would have been at least one Bush assistant onboard in advance. If the banner was objectionable, he would have called Washington for advice. Why are you arguing the obvious?
saucy – it would have been insensitive to take down the banner meant for the ship. Who knew the press would lie about the banner?
How can anyone compare WWII and the western civilizations involved to the Eastern and Muslim world??? This is precisely where we keep going wrong. Square peg, round hole… There is no simple “follow the manual” for this type of foreign policy issue. As I said, did anyone think it was going to work? There traditions, hate, politics predate the US by about a thousand years. When the Renaissance came, it never came to that part of the world.
Eric – you are correct on the rotations home. There was some kind of point system that was arrived at. The higher number of points you had the sooner you got home, or shipped to the Pacific after VE Day.
Paul C. Schulte, TheSaucyMugwump,
The VE and VJ Days of WW2 were accompanied by far greater and more ostentatious celebration than a ‘mission accomplished’ banner on a ship that, indeed had accomplished its particular mission, with more missions to come.
Yet our troops did not come home from Europe and Asia following the VE and VJ Days. Or rather most of them did come home to be replaced by other troops, and many of our war veterans returned later to Europe and Asia, including bloody conflicts in the aftermath of WW2, as our military presence in Europe and Asia transitioned from fighting war to securing and building the peace and the World Wars transitioned to the Cold War.
Like I said, our peace-building project in Iraq was not novel in the modern era of international American leadership. The deviation was our premature termination of the project.
Paul, your comment, “Not sure how many toadies came before Bush,” is naive as heck. Or partisan. There is no way a president would land anywhere without advance teams of Secret Service, the press secretary or his assistant, many toadies, and the press, even on an aircraft carrier. Do you remember that the event was broadcast live? That implies that the White House press corps was already onboard.
saucy – there may have been a pool broadcaster. There is limited extra space on an aircraft carrier so I am sure a small amount of Secret Service went in advance.
TheSaucyMugwump: “Iraq neither invaded nor declared war on the U.S. so your sentence is a false comparison.”
There’s more than one form of war, ie, military engagement, than WW2, especially in the modern era of international American leadership.
I’m guessing you’re not a kid – did you ignore the accrual US(/UN)-Iraqi relations between 1990 and 2003, while it was happening? You know that Desert Storm was only suspended by a ceasefire that was strictly conditioned upon Saddam fulfilling mandated terms, right?
For a refresher on the background context, go here: http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2004/10/perspective-on-operation-iraqi-freedom.html . It’s a tabulation of mostly primary sources with several timelines. Start with the Clinton and Congress sections, although the UN, Bush, and other sections educate as well.
Of course, your statement misses – my guess is deliberately – my point about the basic necessity of post-war peace operations to responsibly secure the peace long-term following a war.
We gain little from war itself because war is destruction. The prize of war is the power to build the peace on our terms and denying an incompatible enemy, like Saddam, peace on his terms. The long-term gains we historically associate with wars have actually been realized from our peace-building following those wars. To resolve the toxic Saddam problem and then leave Iraq without first responsibly securing the peace would have been a contradiction of all our acquired wisdom as leader of the free world, an inhumane abandonment of the Iraqi people, and a short-sighted, enormously risky gamble that invited new problems.
As has come to pass since we irresponsibly exited Iraq.
TheSaucyMugwump: “Your use of the partisan phrase “stay the course” communicates your bias.”
Huh? Eisenhower was a Republican President who stayed the course from a Democrat President. Obama is a Democrat President who should have stayed the course from a Republican President. Bush was a Republican President who carried forward the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement from a Democrat President, who carried it forward from a Republican President.
From President Clinton’s announcement of Operation Desert Fox:
Unless by “partisan” you mean liberal rather than Democrat or Republican, because President Bush’s response to 9/11, including and especially the decision to finally resolve the toxic Saddam problem, was a definitively liberal response by the leader of the free world, that was squarely in the liberal heritage forged by Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, and to a lesser degree, Clinton.
The #1 Paul wrote ” the mission accomplished banner was for the aircraft carrier and put up by the captain of the ship”
Okay, so you are saying that ‘W’ and his toadies were incompetent and clueless as to the impact of the banner? If you were being given a retirement party, would you allow yourself to be photographed under a banner created by someone else that read “Worst employee of all time”?
“didn’t Obama say that he had destroyed al-Quada”
Lots of people have said that because they do not understand Islam.
saucy – the aircraft carrier was at sea. Not sure how many toadies came before Bush. Bush flew his jet in and was still in his flight suit or at least jacket. I have not done it, but I have heard that landing on a carrier is not for the faint at heart. Especially one that is moving.
saucy – btw, the mission accomplished banner was for the aircraft carrier and put up by the captain of the ship. Bush just had the misfortune to stand under it. His speech never said that the mission was over, rather that part of the mission had be completed but another huge part was left to do.
The #1 Paul wrote “I thought Obama had declared mission accomplished on these guys?”
That was your buddy ‘W’. Obama’s pullout is closer to Nixon / Ford’s pullout in Vietnam.
saucy – didn’t Obama say that he had destroyed al-Quada (sp)?
This all started when humans migrated to those regions. Then other humans came along to control the first group. And on and on. Assad was the best answer. Annie said it in a comment above. For the West to step in would be dumb again. But we get dumb and dumber. We need a Presidential candidate who will run on a platform of Pull Out Now.
Eric wrote “The 2003-2011 peace operations in Iraq were necessary to secure and build the long-term peace, the same as we as we did following World War 2 during the Cold War.”
Iraq neither invaded nor declared war on the U.S. so your sentence is a false comparison.
“Eisenhower stayed the course in Europe and Asia, especially Korea despite actually campaigning against the Korean War.”
In truth, many ROK and some U.S. soldiers were kept by North Korea and possibly transferred to the Soviet Union. We know this because a handful of them have escaped and told us (www.cbc.ca/news/world/south-korean-pows-escape-after-45-years-1.160680). That’s hardly staying the course. For better or worse, Eisenhower ended the Korean War to stop even more soldiers and civilians from being killed or captured. And it is not remotely a coincidence that Stalin’s death in March 1953 was followed by the end of the Korean War in July of the same year.
P.S. Your use of the partisan phrase “stay the course” communicates your bias.
Anon,
The most terrified wins… ?
“America was winning the War on Terror when President Bush left office.” -BS by Eric
http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/07/03/the-original-sin-of-americas-post-911-wars/
There is no “winning the War on Terror”, Eric.
Fix: President Obama simply should have stayed the course from President Bush as President Eisenhower stayed the course from President Truman.
Oops. I didn’t mean to slight our 33rd president.
jonathanturley: “It appears that we have spent $4 trillion in both countries and lost thousands of soldiers only to have the the rise of the Taliban of Afghanistan and now an even worse group take control of much of Iraq (in addition to have Iran now openly intervening in the Iraq).”
The 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement was right on the law and justified on the policy – but distorted in the politics. The 2003-2011 peace operations in Iraq were necessary to secure and build the long-term peace, the same as we as we did following World War 2 during the Cold War. President Obama simply should have stayed the course from President Bush as President Eisenhower stayed the course from Truman.
America was winning the War on Terror when President Bush left office. In particular, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a cornerstone strategic victory that had resolved the festering Saddam problem (none too soon, according to the Duelfer Report), revitalized international enforcement in the defining international enforcement mission of the post-Cold War, demonstrated the mettle of American leadership and devastated the terrorists with the Counterinsurgency “Surge”, and provided the US with an emerging keystone partner in pluralistic, liberalizing post-Saddam Iraq to reform the region.
Bush gave President Obama a winning hand to build on. However, since taking office, Obama has reversed the hard-won progress made under Bush by committing the gross strategic blunders of bungling the SOFA negotiation with Iraq and fundamentally changing course from Bush’s foreign policy. Consequently, the terrorists have resurged in the gaps opened by the lurching, stumbling, diminished American leadership under President Obama.
The necessary condition to secure and build the peace – liberal or otherwise – is security. Obama took away Iraq’s security. Obama’s foreign policy has created insecurity.
The proximate causes of the crisis in Iraq are, one, the construction of ISIS in Syria that combined with, two, the U.S.-abandoned vulnerability of Iraq. Both conditions arose from post-Bush events, such as the degeneration of the Arab Spring, that are related to policy course changes made by President Obama that fundamentally deviated from President Bush’s foreign policy.
What is happening to Iraq now is because Obama made the incredible, basic error of prematurely leaving Iraq unprotected surrounded by danger instead of staying the course like Eisenhower stayed the course in Europe and Asia, especially Korea despite actually campaigning against the Korean War. Eisenhower understood the long-term, big picture implications of withdrawing American security in a way that Obama fundamentally does not (unless you believe Obama is purposely trying to create insecurity and opportunities for the enemy, which he scarcely could do better if he tried).
Leaving Iraq prematurely in 2011 was a grave pivotal error that was compounded by Obama’s deviation from the Bush Freedom Agenda, which might have directed the course of the Arab Spring differently.
We were clearly succeeding in Iraq at the point that Obama changed course from Bush. Moreover, our long-term peace-building in post-Saddam Iraq wasn’t even a novel project. It’s part of America’s modern heritage. We’ve carried out the same peace-building project before, multiply and successfully.
What would have happened to early-development Germany, Japan, or Korea had we abandoned them to surrounding dangers in the 1950s? The pivotal difference between the ISIS-declared caliphate today in Iraq and the emerging Iraq praised by President Obama in May 2011 as “Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process” is the absence or presence of American security.
Simply put, as long as the US was guaranteeing Iraq’s security – the same way we guaranteed security with our protective custodies during the Cold War – then a pluralistic, liberal Iraq could develop. But when Obama bungled the SOFA negotiation and removed American security from the nascent post-Saddam Iraq, surrounded by the growing threats from the collapse of the Arab Spring, Iraq was placed in great danger.
The fundamental foundation of international relations is the same now as it was during the Cold War, the World Wars, and back to the dawn of nations: security through force. The necessary condition for building the peace on our terms is controlling security through force. Iraq’s pluralistic liberal course depended on American security. Without American security, the invading ISIS has been given the freedom and opportunity by Obama to use force to impose ISIS’s form of incompatible, inimical peace in Iraq.
Current events do not discredit the viability of a liberal peace. They only discredit the notion that peace is achievable when the the enforcers of peace are deficient in their provision of security. Liberal peace was succeeding in Iraq with US force protecting and facilitating Iraq’s progression. Liberal peace is now under severe attack in Iraq and in profound danger of collapse in Iraq because the necessary vital US force was removed.
Where the liberal West, especially America, applies sufficient force to counter competing forces, liberal peace can take root and grow. Where the liberal West, especially America, applies insufficient force in the face of competing forces, liberal peace is at much greater risk of being miscarried or still-born. It has always been thus for the international community.
The stark difference between Iraq today and the Iraq praised by President Obama in May 2011 for turning the corner is the best example of the binary either/or pivot determined by the sufficient or insufficient presence of liberal-peace facilitating American force when competing versus inimical, incompatible historical forces such as the aspiring jihadists.
You can’t treat an aggressive malignant cancer partway and then quit because the cure is painful and expensive. You fight the cancer until it’s sufficiently neutralized and then you take thorough active care to prevent its return. Any less care and the cancer will return, likely worse than before.
Obama’s job was to pick up from Bush the succeeding but not yet completed course of treatment in the War on Terror, in the tradition of Ike following Truman. In fact, 2009 Iraq was in a much better state than 1953 Korea. Yet despite inheriting a winning hand from Bush, Obama failed to build on the hard-won progress made under Bush. Worse, Obama’s fundamental errors have created insecurity and a profound reversal in favor of our enemies and competitors.
Who can tell?
Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
Jon 3:5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
Jon 3:6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
Jon 3:9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/07/03/the-original-sin-of-americas-post-911-wars/
“We got the war we asked for, or…fell for.”
And we all bear some responsibility for what’s happening now, both abroad and at home.
Not enough attention has been paid to what’s going on domestically. We believe ourselves to be so very “civil” and yet we turn a blind eye to the horrors at home.