• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Fmr. U.S. Commander: Iraq War helped create ISIS; group cannot be "destroyed"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Principate

Saint Titanfall
I dislike W but the constant daddy references never made sense to me. HW Bush will never outright say it but nearly all of his comments on the war suggest he opposed it. He's on record saying Cheney basically pushed W around. I'll take the father's foreign policy over the son's any day of the week.

Yeah he personally did, but I doubt his son and his advisors (who lets be honest were running that show W wasn't exactly the smartest light bulb) certainly had lingering thoughts about Iraq.
 
I really need to read up a bit more on this side of history I suppose. I feel like I kind of knew some of this but obviously spaced.

Kind of crazy to think how some of the worlds most heinous leaders were actually caught before they did a lot of even worse shit.

I'm guessing cause they got caught the first time due to making a mistake. And they're smart enough not to make the same mistake twice. So once released they just become more dangerous.
 
I definitely agree with him that history and the school teachings must claim the way the Bush administration handled the Iraq war as a failure. Lessons must be learned from this so that any future conflicts don't go down this same path, although I don't see anyone learning from this unfortunately and it will just take another emotional reaction to start something similar.
Isn't the fact that Obama is not sending troops into Syria proof that SOMEONE has learned the lesson?
 

dabig2

Member
Iraq wasnt all they planned before 9/11.

“We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran” –
General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia .

Almost forgot that. You get a war, and you get a war, and you get a war! And yet a majority of Americans will probably continue to think that foreign policy + Republicans = good. Ideology, false bravado, and fear is all you need to woo idiots.
 

Mimosa97

Member
You think invading Mecca and Medina would have resulted in less terrorism and Islamic extremism?

I don't think that's a well thought out counterfactual.

Of course not. Only muslims could get rid of Wahabism and take back islam's holiest sites from the hands of the Sauds. We as infidels cannot set foot on their soil.

What I mean by targeting saudi arabi is pressuring all american allies into cutting ties with the country and leading an ideological war against wahabism and salafism.
 
Most countries weren't that eager. There's a reason why almost everyone allowed Hitler to get away with as much shit as he did even Russia. They were still recovering from the effects of first world war.
Never forget that lots of people misunderstood Hitler's real intentions. Chamberlain returned to England after the Munich agreement and declared that he had secured "peace for our time." Hitler's take away was to say "our enemies are worms" and that they couldn't possibly resist the German military.

Breathtaking irresponsibility on the part of Chamberlain, but he was hardly alone.

This is off topic though so I won't keep talking about it too much
 
Bush had to finish his daddies business. I mean Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, How the bush administration managed to sell that war on complete bullshit continues to astound me.

I still remember the cheek they had to mock the French after Vetoing that shit down. In the end France still suffered.

https://youtu.be/GvliUuXjbL4?t=4m59s

those Weapons of Mass Destruction gotta be somewhere...
 
Most countries weren't that eager. There's a reason why almost everyone allowed Hitler to get away with as much shit as he did even Russia. They were still recovering from the effects of first world war.

Well most of countries would have not been eager but it's enough if one country is. Soviets would have at least tried to conquer the old areas of Russian Empire back (see their annexation of baltics and Winter War against Finland even before WWII properly started) and depending on the success and the state of militaries in the west could have rolled straight trough the western Europe too.
 

orochi91

Member
You can neither defeat an ideology with bombs, nor with silence.

My biggest concern is that the “war on terrorism” will last for many decades.

In all honesty, its been 15 years already since it started, it will go on for decades to come.
 
Buried the big lead: they literally had ISIS's leader back in 2004 and released him.

So crazy in hindsight. Like finding out you had Hitler a few years before the Holocaust and released him.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you release, this happens. If you hold, you just get run into the ground by the media and the public about how you're holding people on extraordinary rendition (e.g. in Guatanamo) without any real charges.
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
ISIS cannot be literally destroyed. Even when they were confined to Iraq with the country occupied by the US, the Sahwa was still doing their thing, and the Sunni population didn't perceive the government in Baghdad as actively marginalising them, the ISI still existed even though it was a tiny withered husk of its former self, driven underground and reduced to the occasional bombing or kidnapping/murder.

The group will always exist in one form or another. Dude isn't saying anything that everyone didn't already know.
 

giga

Member
But the yellow cake…

tumblr_inline_nubuj5mM3G1qbmjla_540.jpg
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Iraq wasnt all they planned before 9/11.

“We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran” –
General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia .

Wasn't Wesley Clark who said that though.

In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: "As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran."
 
Surprised you didn't bold this part:

Following the violent attacks in Paris earlier this month, Flynn said that the Obama administration's foreign policy is "amateurish" and has "its own place of responsibility in the mayhem that we are seeing right now."

We could really use a leader with a decent foreign policy.
 

Go_Ly_Dow

Member
Did they ever actually find any "weapons of mass destruction"?

I was a young teen back then and remember Bush stating that line every weak.
 

SpecX

Member
Isn't the fact that Obama is not sending troops into Syria proof that SOMEONE has learned the lesson?

Yeah, but Obama won't stay in power forever and who's to say this wont be repeated after we go through our next 3-4 presidents? I just don't want things to eventually improve over there progressing in the right direction and due to historians glazing over this we end up repeating the entire situation.
 

jelly

Member
Isn't the fact that Obama is not sending troops into Syria proof that SOMEONE has learned the lesson?

For now....and you can't turn the military industrial machine up to 11 and not have stuff to blow up. They'll get more wars. Imagine if there is an attack on a big scale against the US again, you think the wind won't change?
 

rambis

Banned
Surprised you didn't bold this part:



We could really use a leader with a decent foreign policy.
Obama's main blunder in this is pulling out of Iraq early after Bush's war. But given that most Americans wanted out of the Middle East by the time 2008 rolled around, I don't know how much I can blame him. Its one of the things he was elected to do.

I think mostly what people need to do is make up their mind on what they want. And remember what they chose. You either want an America that doesnt play world police and spend years at war or you want a hawkish America.
 
Did they ever actually find any "weapons of mass destruction"?

I was a young teen back then and remember Bush stating that line every weak.
Depends entirely on how hard you wanna stretch the definition of "weapons of mass destruction".
You think invading Mecca and Medina would have resulted in less terrorism and Islamic extremism?

I don't think that's a well thought out counterfactual.
To target =/= to invade.

And an alarming number of recruits are second or third generation people from countries with high quality universal education.

How large a number?
 

Fox Mulder

Member
Surprised you didn't bold this part:



We could really use a leader with a decent foreign policy.

yeah, destabilizing the region by taking down iron fisted dictators really worked well. We should just become energy independent and say fuck the middle east and their oil. Sorry we left it in a mess, but you guys clean it up.
 
Obama's main blunder in this is pulling out of Iraq early after Bush's war. But given that most Americans wanted out of the Middle East by the time 2008 rolled around, I don't know how much I can blame him. Its one of the things he was elected to do.

I think mostly what people need to do is make up their mind on what they want. And remember what they chose. You either want an America that doesnt play world police and spend years at war or you want a hawkish America.

Would have to be a permanent occupation. We've been in Afghanistan for longer and are still there but there's news of ISIL growing in influence there. Never mind the Taliban still exist also.
 
Obama's main blunder in this is pulling out of Iraq early after Bush's war. But given that most Americans wanted out of the Middle East by the time 2008 rolled around, I don't know how much I can blame him. Its one of the things he was elected to do.

Not really Obama's blunder unless you want to blame him for not trying hard to keep troops there.

He was following an agreement singed by Bush in 2008 with Iraq that all troops would be removed from Iraq by 2011.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom