david cohen wrote:Let's roll the hands of time back to October 2001. IF we never invaded Iraq and left Saddam Hussein in power, most likely, he'd still be there.
There were many strategic and humanitarian problems with leaving Hussein in power. It is not such a clear choice. You can argue that the U.S. invasion failed to bring democracy to Iraq, it was a mistake.
I actually am not so upset about developments in Iraq. Maliki is a disaster, barely better than Assad in Syria.
I am very happy that the Kurds have taken control of the territory around Kirkuk. That seems like the least unjust outcome there.
The Sunni insurgency in Iraq is not just ISIS. Former Iraqi generals are also leading troops. The former vice president of Iraq (who fled to Kurdistan) is leading a militia.
The Sunni insurgency is not powerful enough to takeover Iraq or overrun Baghdad. Iran has sent a militia to Tikrit to retake that city. I expect the insurgency is spread too thin to hold much more territory.
I of course am troubled by the extreme Sunni Islamicists gaining power. But they already controlled a third of Syria. If they have foothold in Northern third of Iraq, it really doesn't present any incremental threat to U.S. interests. Turkey, Iran, and the Kurds plus Shitte militias will keep themin their box.
Maliki has been such an unmitigated disaster. I can't see the U.S. bailing him out, we're not bailing out Assad. I hope the Sunni people can find a way to deal with their own extremists.