In northern Syria, is the US running out of rebel allies?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

IS arose out of AQI - a group that was led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. These folks were NOT in Saddam's Iraq. They came to Iraq once Bush had disposed of Saddam. And it grew from there. The disposal of Saddam was what started it all. There's no argument to be had about that. Despite there not having been any justification for going in, given the geopolitical landscape in the region, going in and taking him out was not just a big mistake, it was reckless and utterly stupid. The elder Bush knew this. It's why he didn't go for it.

You ARE full of it. al-Zarqawi and AQI are/is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda (al-Nusra) and IS don't particularly like each other. Face it. The brains, the military officers behind IS are all former members of Saddam's Ba'ath Party.

The Strange Irony Hidden Among The Highest Ranks Of ISIS

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You ARE full of it. al-Zarqawi and AQI are/is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda (al-Nusra) and IS don't particularly like each other. Face it. The brains, the military officers behind IS are all former members of Saddam's Ba'ath Party.

The Strange Irony Hidden Among The Highest Ranks Of ISIS

You know that to an extent you're both correct? Certainly there are former Ba'ath Party members involved. They met with and made common cause with radical Jihadist groups in prison. How that somehow isn't a direct result of dismantling Iraq under Saddam by Bush is where your argument goes off the rails.

[-relo- 105]

So Powells' quote means Bush broke it so Obama owns it? I am certain that Obama has taken US obligations to Iraq quite seriously vis a vis the damage done to Iraq post the Bush invasion. The quote does not mean that Obama invaded Iraq.

ISIS did not form out of Obamas' foreign policy. ISIS is the even more bat guano crazy stepchild of groups like AQ.

'WE' as in all. including obama's first and current SOS, who both voted for the Iraq war. you can't seriously believe isis would control the land area they do had we not pulled out & turned our backs on the area.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Noone wanted to stay in Iraq, it was a toxic issue. Anyone who got into office in 2008 would have followed suit because that was the prevailing mindset at the time among politicians and the general public. Nobody was campaigning for another 10 years of military occupation.

The fact is, the US and UK should have never gone into Iraq. Once that happened the die was cast and it set the seed for everything that has happened since.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ever wonder why Obama and the Whitehouse do not focus on al-Nusra? Recent events would suggest they are a bigger threat than IS to Obama's strategy to destroy IS in Syria. The reason? He would have to admit he was wrong about the premature demise of al-Qaeda as they systematically destroy the "moderate Syrian opposition".

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You ARE full of it. al-Zarqawi and AQI are/is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda (al-Nusra) and IS don't particularly like each other. Face it. The brains, the military officers behind IS are all former members of Saddam's Ba'ath Party.

The Strange Irony Hidden Among The Highest Ranks Of ISIS

So your argument is that ISIS are in essence Saddam's old Baathists. And you offer an article that says exactly the opposite. It speaks of an "alliance" that the Baathists have formed with ISIS - an unnatural alliance since these two groups couldn't be more different. The article speaks of the conflicts between the two. If ISIS had grown out of Saddam's forces, then none of that would make any sense. But I am the one full of it. Right.

You know that to an extent you're both correct? Certainly there are former Ba'ath Party members involved. They met with and made common cause with radical Jihadist groups in prison. How that somehow isn't a direct result of dismantling Iraq under Saddam by Bush is where your argument goes off the rails.

You got it.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I think it all shows how unprepared we were when we started the Iraq war and it reinforces the point that W was right in scheduling the troop pull out for 2012. That is quite possibly one of the few lucid moments of his administration.

So your argument is that ISIS are in essence Saddam's old Baathists. And you offer an article that says exactly the opposite. It speaks of an "alliance" that the Baathists have formed with ISIS - an unnatural alliance since these two groups couldn't be more different. The article speaks of the conflicts between the two. If ISIS had grown out of Saddam's forces, then none of that would make any sense. But I am the one full of it. Right.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

'WE' as in all. including obama's first and current SOS, who both voted for the Iraq war. you can't seriously believe isis would control the land area they do had we not pulled out & turned our backs on the area.

The only way to not pull out of Iraq would have been to leave our service men and women there without proper protection that are afforded via a status of forces agreement. The Iraqi parliament would not approve such an agreement and we had thus really no choice but to leave. That's the reality that doesn't seem to be sinking in with you. Besides, AQI grew significantly in Iraq while we were present with our troops. We couldn't prevent that. What makes you think we could have prevented ISIS - which grew out of the very AQI that our invasion gave rise to - with a much, much smaller force?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think it all shows how unprepared we were when we started the Iraq war and it reinforces the point that W was right in scheduling the troop pull out for 2012. That is quite possibly one of the few lucid moments of his administration.

The troop pull-out was less scheduled by Bush as it was dictated by the Iraqis. The UN mandate was about to expire and they wanted us out. It's their country. If Bush had understood that 5 years earlier, we wouldn't be in any of this mess to begin with.

[-relo- 105]

The only way to not pull out of Iraq would have been to leave our service men and women there without proper protection that are afforded via a status of forces agreement. The Iraqi parliament would not approve such an agreement and we had thus really no choice but to leave. That's the reality that doesn't seem to be sinking in with you. Besides, AQI grew significantly in Iraq while we were present with our troops. We couldn't prevent that. What makes you think we could have prevented ISIS - which grew out of the very AQI that our invasion gave rise to - with a much, much smaller force?

if you're going to quote something said to another poster, at least attempt to address what you're quoting. also try to not misrepresent what you quote. we broke it (we'll get to us also creating it prior at a later time) we own it (its our obligation to not let terrorist organization create another terrorist state in the region)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

if you're going to quote something said to another poster, at least attempt to address what you're quoting. also try to not misrepresent what you quote. we broke it (we'll get to us also creating it prior at a later time) we own it (its our obligation to not let terrorist organization create another terrorist state in the region)

Contrary to your narrative, we don't actually own the country. The Iraqis do. They have a government that they elected. And that government includes a parliament that would have to approve an agreement with the US for our troops to be there and have a protected status - this is called a status of force agreement or SOFA. The Iraqi parliament approved a SOFA in 2008 ahead of the end of the UN mandate that provided status and protection to our forces in Iraq. That SOFA expired on 31 Dec 2011. That expiration is what drove our troop withdrawl from Iraq.

The Obama administration worked with the Iraqis to extend the SOFA for a 5,000 troop contingency that was to assist Iraq primarily with advice and training. The Iraqi parliament wanted none of it. And so we left as agreed in 2008. That was really not the US President's decision to make at that point.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So your argument is that ISIS are in essence Saddam's old Baathists. And you offer an article that says exactly the opposite. It speaks of an "alliance" that the Baathists have formed with ISIS - an unnatural alliance since these two groups couldn't be more different. The article speaks of the conflicts between the two. If ISIS had grown out of Saddam's forces, then none of that would make any sense. But I am the one full of it. Right.

It is okay. You can admit you were wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

if you're going to quote something said to another poster, at least attempt to address what you're quoting. also try to not misrepresent what you quote. we broke it (we'll get to us also creating it prior at a later time) we own it (its our obligation to not let terrorist organization create another terrorist state in the region)

I think it's more realistic to put Bush and his inner circle on trial for hijacking the US military for private gain. And that has a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening.

[JohnR! 5,495]

One thing though is that the American people also wanted to bring back our guys as soon as possible. It didn't take much for the facts to emerge that we had invaded Iraq based on false information and we all wanted to pull out sooner rather than later.

As another posted mentioned earlier perhaps W lacked the intellectual wherewithal, foresight and the authority to undo what he had started, being left to count his blessing when the Iraqis told him to get our guys out of there.

The troop pull-out was less scheduled by Bush as it was dictated by the Iraqis. The UN mandate was about to expire and they wanted us out. It's their country. If Bush had understood that 5 years earlier, we wouldn't be in any of this mess to begin with.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

W. wasn't making the decisions. It's amazing how the description of 'empty suit' is levelled at Obama when it was clear to most of the Western world that this is exactly what GWB was - the front man for his dad's old business partners.

Its a collective delusion that involves seeing the blatantly obvious, pretending that it isn't happening and then blaming the next guy who comes along - as if they arrived at the realisation out of a fever dream.

Edited March 5, 2015 by For Ffolkes Sake