Iraq Intervention Poll

[Sheilbh]

You know precisely what Iran would want to bring to the table:  they'll want to leverage bullshit over their nuclear program, buying time and accomodation--and that is not a bargaining chip, IMHO.

They don't have any leverage. They apparently want US bombs. How much are they (credibly and verifiably) willing to give to get it?

Until then not a single drone

[Grey Fox]

You know precisely what Iran would want to bring to the table:  they'll want to leverage bullshit over their nuclear program, buying time and accomodation--and that is not a bargaining chip, IMHO.

Why not? Recognize Israel, Stop funding Hamas and you've got a deal for a couple hundred bombs.

[Berkut]

Bombing seems like a win-win scenario.

If it works, and Iraq turns into a free and democratic western liberal state, then Yeah! Awesome!

And if it doesn't then we get to kill a bunch of radical extremist religious nuts.

What could go wrong?

[Barrister]

Bombing seems like a win-win scenario.

If it works, and Iraq turns into a free and democratic western liberal state, then Yeah! Awesome!

And if it doesn't then we get to kill a bunch of radical extremist religious nuts.

What could go wrong?

Just the usual problem - without really good intel you're using million dollar munitions to blow up ten dollar tents.

[CountDeMoney]

Paul Bremer's saying we need boots on the ground.

I can appreciate the Obama hate over things he can't control, but can we at least not listen to the people that fucked this all up in the first place?

[CountDeMoney]

without really good intel you're using million dollar munitions to blow up ten dollar tents.

Dude, it's what we do.  They'd all just lay around anyway.

[derspiess]

Bombing seems like a win-win scenario.

If it works, and Iraq turns into a free and democratic western liberal state, then Yeah! Awesome!

And if it doesn't then we get to kill a bunch of radical extremist religious nuts.

What could go wrong?

We could save our bombs and let the IRG spend some lives killing them.

[crazy canuck]

Just say no

[lustindarkness]

Should have nuked them a long time ago.

[Darth Wagtaros]

If this topic is as controversial as it was in EUOT, will it drive us all to another board?

[The Minsky Moment]

The time to use air power was a year ago in Syria in support of the least odorific elements of the anti-Assad coalition (i.e. the same elements that were battering ISIS until Assad renewed his offensive).  That might have have taken the wind out of ISIS before the ship sailed.

Not clear exactly what the US would be striking or where or when.  Nor is the geography straightforward.

Also don't think it is panic time yet.  It is one thing to force out some divided garrisons far from the Shia heartlands, but at this point expansion can only move either towards those heartlands or towards the Kurds and their autonomous militias. 

[jimmy olsen]

Thin end of the wedge?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/u-s-sends-170-military-personnel-iraq-more-possible-n132676

U.S. Sends 170 Military Personnel to Iraq, With More Possible
By Jim Miklaszewski and M. Alex Johnson

The U.S. has sent 170 military personnel to Iraq to shore up security for Americans and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, defense officials said Monday — and a hundred more could be on the way.

President Barack Obama formally notified Congress of the assignment in a letter under the War Powers Act on Monday, which said "up to approximately 275" personnel were being reassigned, noting specifically that they are "equipped for combat."

Defense officials confirmed Monday that 170 military personnel were already in place, having moved into the country sometime over the weekend. They said Obama pegged the number at 275 to give himself a "little extra headroom" in case he needs to send reinforcements.

Obama said last week that "I don't rule anything out" as Iraq has spiraled out of control amid Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence in recent days. At the same time, he insisted that the U.S. wouldn't send ground troops.

And while the 170 personnel are equipped for combat, the White House said they're in Iraq only to "provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad," and to help the State Department move some embassy staff to U.S. consulates elsewhere in the country.

Security and protection are the same reasons U.S. officials have given for sending several naval ships to the Persian Gulf, although a senior defense official told NBC News: "If the president orders airstrikes, we have plenty of firepower in the Gulf."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said through a spokesman that he supported Obama's decision, but he called on the president to come up with a "comprehensive strategy to protect America's national security interests in Iraq."

"Too many Americans sacrificed too much to allow Iraq to slip back into chaos," Boehner said.

[Razgovory]

He seems to be fucking up a lot lately.

[MadImmortalMan]

Can't really say. He has much more info than we do.

[Razgovory]

I can't think of anyway to see the Syrian thing other then a fuck up.