Islamic State militants have continued their scorched earth campaign to wipe out anything considered non-Islamic. After destroying art and artifacts in the Mosul Museum and then the priceless ruins at Nimrud, ISIS is now destroying the ruins of the large fortified city at Hatra, one the capital of the first Arab kingdom. The site has withstood attacks since 116 with the Romans, but ISIS is using modern explosives and bulldozes to eradicate the 2000-year-old site.
Hatra is located 68 miles southwest of the city of Mosul, was a large fortified city the flourished during the Parthian Empire and was capital of the first Arab kingdom. Hatra was probably built in the 3rd or 2nd century BC. ISIS views such sites as promoting idolatry and departing from the true Islamic faith.
ISIS continues to destroy the very culture and history of the Arab people. It is also the history of civilization — an area that is properly called the cradle of civilization as humanity began to take great strides in medicine, mathematics, and other areas. ISIS however demands blind obedience and seeks to destroy any other values or viewpoints other than its form of Islamic orthodoxy.
I think that the mass slaughter inflicted by ISIS, their beheading and burning videos, their seizure of large parts of Syria and Iraq, and their stated objectives do provide some insight and understanding as to the nature of the enemy.
There are clearly differences of opinion as to how to deal with groups like ISIS, al Queda, Boko Harem, etc.
After the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, the common belief was that this action was not at all representative of some major, continuing plot by Islamic terrorists against the U.S.
That 1993 attack was generally presented as something akin to a Jim Jonestown massacre, involving a crazy, radical blind sheik and a few of his followers.
By 1998, after the African embassy bombings and Bin Laden’s exhortations for “good Muslims” to kill Americans, I think anbody paying attention could realize that he was dead-ass serious, and a real threat
Short of lobby a few cruise missiles his way, there was no serious attempt to deal with him prior to 9-11.
He simply was not considered a high enough of a priority to risk a military action against him.
What concerns me is that I see a fairly flippant, casual, politically correct dismissal of the threats we actually face. These are reflected in statements like yours, Mustardseed.
I think posing a question like “Does anybody really think they’ll try to come over here again?” is akin to dismissing the Al Quaeda threat in the late 1990s.
S
Tom Nash wrote: “After the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, the common belief was that this action was not at all representative of some major, continuing plot by Islamic terrorists against the U.S.”
Exactly right. I was one of those people. It was not until 9/11/2001 that I realized that we had a serious enemy who actually did pose a threat to us and our way of life. Now some people here want to go back to that pre-9/11 attitude. Sorry, but our worldview changed drastically on 9/11. If they ever get their hands on nuclear weapons, God help us all. It’s over. Their beheadings and demolishing of museums and ancient sites will look like child’s play.
Cheney and Co. understood the Iraqi culture well enough to know that once Saddam was removed, the region would remain in turmoil with sectarian violence threatening to spill over every border in the Middle East. It’s what they were counting on.
The surge was never going to amount to anything but window-dressing, and that they knew as well.
Cheney and Bush and their media cohorts lied to the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq and the results they promised to deliver. It reveals something of the pathological nature of Republicans that they simply cannot ascribe the rightful blame to Cheney/Bush Co. They are cult members living in a world of psychosis, fear and hatred, guzzling kool-aid.
mustardseed – once you stop drinking the kook-aide you will feel better. This Bush did it meme is long over. Just as Hillary’s campaign is going to be over before it starts. At her press conference yesterday she couldn’t even be a convincing liar. As one columnist “At least Bill was a good liar.”
There is a book about which soe of you may be aware called “The are of war” One of its primary premises to avoid defeat is to know the nature of your enemy. Clearly no one in the Bush Admin had a clue. Will anybody who has made comments here claim that they know the nature of our enemy there? And if not, then you please explain why you wish to keep expending lives and treasure over there? Or do you really think that “they” are going to come over here again?
If you want to do “something” then go over there an fight. Or maybe get the Saudies to invest their blood and treasure. Oh wait — it was Saudies who flew those planes into our buildings 13+ years ago.
Well, at a minimum at least try and learn something about who is fighting who and why and is there really any likely successful course of action before wasting more resources.
I think it’s a mistake to describe the surge as a complete failure, and the relative stability and security the surge produced is often conveniently dismissed or ignored.
In any case, we’re fortunate that it’s all in the past now that Obama fulfilled his pledge to end the Iraq war. Don’t let the fact that we’re re-inserting U.S
troops, or the fact that ISIS controls a large part of Iraq, ever convince you otherwise.
Hey david, you may have a triple digit IQ, but your reading and interpretation skills need some work
“Cheney was on Meet the Press a lot. What date did he say that he projected a very limited period of combat? I never heard him say that, and I searched many transcripts just now and cannot find anything where he said that. Until you provide some evidence, I do not believe you are telling the truth.”
Sept 2003:
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.
=========
I suppose that you could go humpty dumpty and claim that as of Sept 2003 that military operations had not really ceased since only major operations had ended:
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. But then they never really did end did they. We defeated the army but the conflict did not end. And we certainly did not need all those troops. Oh yea. and the war would only cost — why it would be less than 100 billion. And we are at what??? A trillion and counting.
Here is a partial list of your wrongness:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/1222/Iraq-war-Predictions-made-and-results. Bush had 6 years (that 2.5 more years than our involvement in WWII) to bring democracy to Iraq. He failed. Utterly and completely. And it only cost us a trillion dollars.
DavidM2575 wrote: “What date did he [Cheney] say that he projected a very limited period of combat?”
Doug Nusbaum wrote:
==================
Sept 2003:
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.
=========
As I suspected, if this is your best shot, then it is a lie to say that Cheney represented a very limited period of combat. Cheney was correct here to say that this general made an overstatement of the forces needed. Boots on the ground in Iraq were always below 200,000.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf
p. 64 ff.
Doug Nusbaum wrote: “Bush had 6 years (that 2.5 more years than our involvement in WWII) to bring democracy to Iraq. He failed. Utterly and completely.”
You seem to have a penchant for erroneous hyperbole. Last I checked, since the war, Iraq has a new Constitution that is based upon democratic principles. Their elections have continued. Certainly it is not a perfect democracy, but the goal of bringing democracy to Iraq was not a failure. Whether they will keep it in the future remains to be seen. It certainly looks to be more at risk after President Obama’s more recent leadership and foreign policy decisions.
” Clinton gave the go ahead to anybody wanting to create a coup against Saddam Hussein.”
******************
Everyone but the US military, that is.
Your view of history exists only in your imagination.
mustardseed:
==============
” Clinton gave the go ahead to anybody wanting to create a coup against Saddam Hussein.”
******************
Everyone but the US military, that is.
Your view of history exists only in your imagination.
============
Imagination? I quoted to you the Clinton policy recorded in history and shared with us by Eric. Now you are dishonest to clip my words and remove the evidence so you can make a false charge that my view of history exists ONLY in my imagination. Don’t expect me to engage you much any more. Arguing with dishonest people is a waste of time.
We have a Frat House in Norman, Oklahoma which needs to be demolished. At least one. If there is a Frat Row then then burn them all down at once. Nothing is sacred in Oklahoma. The worst thing that Andrew Jackson did was to send the Cherokee there to live on reservations near those rednecks. Boy if I lived on a reservation in OK, I would stay on the reservation.
People of Greek descent in America should be embarrassed that these Frats call themselves Greeks.
Schulte,
If you believe that then…you are free to carry on here with whatever little fantasies you’re trying to push.
Whatever about Libya and Crocker. A Cheney taskforce found that Afghanistan had no rebuilding projects whereas Iraq did. With that finding, the choice was made to invade Iraq on the basis of fabricated evidence.
We have now learned the true reason for dislodging Saddam Hussein….the vast economic opportunities MidEast disruption creates for a few select corporations.
They were likely the driving force behind the clever money-making plot to use American air power to dislodge Gaddafi.
And people like Amb. Ryan Crocker are “delusional”. If
Oliver Stone ever needs a screenwriter with a flair for revisionist history, he can find a uniquely qualified one just from reading a recent comment here.
Eric,
Congress did no such thing. Clinton merely followed the policy of containment that his predecessor left in place. The World Trade attacks changed everything and allowed Bush to ram through an ill-advised radical policy of preemption.
mustardseed wrote: “Clinton merely followed the policy of containment that his predecessor left in place.”
No, not just containment. Clinton gave the go ahead to anybody wanting to create a coup against Saddam Hussein. Years went by and it never happened.
From Eric’s previous post that you ignore:
Clinton, 1998:
SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
OK David,
I think we’re done here. Cheney went on Meet The Press and declared that we would be greeted as liberators, and projected a very limited period of combat. I’d call that scoffing. Another example of the reality you choose to ignore.
Furthermore, Olberman kept a running count of the casualities that American troops suffered since Bush declared Mission Accomplished. It stretched into the thousands and didn’t include Iraqi or foreign losses. In addition, Bush disavowed the announcement, claiming that the banner he stood in front of on the aircraft carrier was not authorized or approved of by him or his staff.
You’ve managed to undermine your own reliability more effectively than any opponent could have done with twice the effort.
mustardseed – the captain of the aircraft carrier stated that the Mission Accomplished banner was for the carrier’s mission and had nothing to do with the President.
mustardseed wrote: “Cheney went on Meet The Press and declared that we would be greeted as liberators, and projected a very limited period of combat.”
Cheney was on Meet the Press a lot. What date did he say that he projected a very limited period of combat? I never heard him say that, and I searched many transcripts just now and cannot find anything where he said that. Until you provide some evidence, I do not believe you are telling the truth.
As for being greeted as liberators, yes, he did say that and he was right. Listen to the cheers in this video:
http://youtu.be/hWxszYK6IPU
mustardseed wrote: “Olberman kept a running count of the casualities that American troops suffered since Bush declared Mission Accomplished. It stretched into the thousands and didn’t include Iraqi or foreign losses.”
That is exactly as Bush predicted. He did not say that all the fighting was over. The major combat aspect of Shock and Awe was over.
mustardseed wrote: “Bush disavowed the announcement, claiming that the banner he stood in front of on the aircraft carrier was not authorized or approved of by him or his staff.”
You twist every fact to put spin on it inappropriately. The press jumped all over “Mission Accomplished” because of the banner and tried to make it say something that it never was meant to say. It is the misrepresentation that Bush disavowed. He wished he could have communicated in a way that would not have been misunderstood and misrepresented. He never retracted his statement that major combat operations were over.
From Bush’s speech:
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. … the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free. … Marines and soldiers charged to Baghdad across 350 miles of hostile ground, in one of the swiftest advances of heavy arms in history. You have shown the world the skill and the might of the American Armed Forces. … America is grateful for a job well done. … In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement. … We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. … The War on Terror continues, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-bush-speech-01-05-2003/
DavidM,
Are you admitting to buying into the delusion and therefore gullible? Or are you fomenting it? Either way, your position flies in the face of reality.
Only the willfully ignorant refuse to acknowledge who wielded the real power behind the Shrubbery.
Ascribing blame to Obama for pulling US troops out of Iraq is truly delusional. The agreement for troop withdrawal was negotiated by the Cheney Administration. Obama actually delayed the drawdown in an effort to avoid rapid destabilization, but as Mike pointed out, a breakdown in societal order was inevitable.
There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Obama. Iraq is not one of them. Holding him accountable for that mess undermines a person’s creditability. Blaming Hillary for Iraq is equally delusional; you might as well blame her for climate change. She didn’t formulate the policy and her vote in the Senate was cast in a highly charged atmosphere, emotionally, in the wake of 911.
Saddam had very little in the way of viable WMD; outdated and dilapidated equipment; old, rusty parts that were of no real threat.
Saddam, himself, was no threat. The grownups had installed him in order to stabilize the region, as a stalemate to the Iranians. Shrub and Co. knew that removing would effectively pull the pin on the Middle East, thereby creating a vast exploitable economic opportunity for a select few corporations. The logical extension of that conclusion is our troops were sacrificed for private gain.
mustardseed – I must have missed a Presidential election. When was Cheney elected President?
mustardseed wrote: “Ascribing blame to Obama for pulling US troops out of Iraq is truly delusional.”
You must not have clicked on RSA’s video.
Davidm
Sorry. Last link to help refresh…
The C-SPAN coverage, all 26 minutes of it. At 17:30 the incident begins.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?282890-2/usiraq-security-agreement
Davidm,
I was in a hurry earlier and didn’t have the time to search for the links. Sorry.
The first link has the appropriate documents linked as: PDF Strategic Framework Agreement; PDF Link Security Agreement
Statement by the President on Agreements with Iraq
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081127-1.html
President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement
Prime Minister’s Palace
Baghdad, Iraq
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081214-2.html
The second link dates back to the shoe throwing incident that was very much talked about in the press. You remember, someone in the audience took his shoe off and threw it at President Bush. He missed. This was the signing…
I didn’t give “The Surge” a snowball’s chance in hell if working, and I was dead wrong. I think Bush 43, Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker had some doubts as well. Hillary Cl inton essentially called them liars, then voted to confirm them.
I need to read all of the comments more closely, but I didn’t see much in the way of reference to the surge, or Petraeus and Crocker.
I mention this because once you blunder into a war..
and I think Gulf War II was a mistake..
..then a “what next” decision has to follow. The surge was the “what next” course if action and it was successful beyond my wildest hopes.
It seems to me that what was salvaged by the surge was worth maintaining through continued diplomatic efforts and a residual American military presence.
As Amb. Crocker noted, like it or not we had become “hardwired” into the Iraqi system, diplomatically and militarily. It didn’t take long for Maliki to step up his marginilization of the Sunnis after we “ended the war in Iraq”. Whatever influence we had over subsequent events, diplomatically and militarily, was lost when we “ended” the war in Iraq.
The fact that this may have been a popular move politically, at least in 2012, is a weak cop-out when considered in light of the leadership role a president can and should play in influencing public opinion, not bowing to it.
I think that we essentially blew any chance for a relatively easy ouster of ISIS by our near-complete disengagement from Iraq. It seems unlikely to that we could achieve another “Anbar Awakening” type of Sunni cooperation against ISIS. They Sunnis have already been burned twice, and it seems unlikely that they will be very committed to ejecting ISIS for the Bahgdad government to regain control of that area.
Obama needed a campaign slogan for 2012. That’s why he pulled out quicker than Bubba did w/ all his bimbos.
About a hundred years ago we embarked on our “exceptionalism” mission when Woodrow Wilson sent us off to war “to make the World safe for Democracy”. This schmuck was also the Commander in Chief who re segregated the military and re segregated Washington DC. He was by far the worst President ever. Since WWI we have been gallavanting around the world with our heads held high. We still wont admit that Nam was a mistake.
The World needs to be made safe for outhouses. We need an international group of armed forces who can put boots on the ground and go kill the wackos. America does not need to be the lead chump. I nominate France.