Global Events & Politics Überthread

[nsacpi]

starting to think deep state and chosen one deserve each other

[nsacpi]

these are obvious points, but worth restating

there is really no need for Iran to retaliate...what is called for is a thank you note

[goldfly]

Iraq voting to expel us soldiers and close the embassy

Man, great call from the cult followers

[thethe]

War machine always makes the argument to stay.

Nobody was bitching about Iran's growing influence as palettes of cash were being given to them.

[nsacpi]

War machine always makes the argument to stay.

Nobody was bitching about Iran's growing influence as palettes of cash were being given to them.

You're right that some people behave inconsistently about this. But what we need is a steady policy that seeks to limit the influence of the Iranians and Russians in the region. And the Chinese too, whose presence there is growing rapidly. It is a fantasy to think we can just pick up and leave. Being asked to leave Iraq is a loss for us and a gain for powers that are not friendly to us.

[thethe]

You're right that some people behave inconsistently about this. But what we need is a steady policy that seeks to limit the influence of the Iranians and Russians in the region. And the Chinese too, whose presence there is growing rapidly. It is a fantasy to think we can just pick up and leave. Being asked to leave Iraq is a loss for us and a gain for powers that are not friendly to us.

What is the opportunity cost of the sunk dollars vs the change in strategic realities on the ground?

[nsacpi]

Even smart people who can think strategically find these sorts of geopolitical decisions difficult. They make mistakes.

When you have an impulsive president who can't assess the second-order consequences of his decisions, the risks of mistakes are much higher. We have been lucky that nothing of real consequence has landed in chosen one's in box the last three years.

[nsacpi]

What is the opportunity cost of the sunk dollars vs the change in strategic realities on the ground?

don't understand your question

[goldfly]

War machine always makes the argument to stay.

Nobody was bitching about Iran's growing influence as palettes of cash were being given to them.

What an argument to make with what has transpired in the last couple days lol

[thethe]

don't understand your question

If we leave Baghdad we have a lot more money to use both domestically and other foreign pursuits.

But then we lose our strategic position in Iraq.

What has more value?

[nsacpi]

Lawmakers in Iraq voted on Sunday to require the government to end the presence of American troops in the country after the United States ordered the killing of the Iranian leader of the elite Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, on Iraqi soil.

The decision to heed the demands of angry Shiite factions and politicians came as hundreds of thousands of mourners poured into the streets of Iran to pay their respects to General Suleimani, the most powerful figure in the country after the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The vote is not final until Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq signs the bill. But since he drafted the language and submitted the bill to Parliament, there was little doubt he would sign it.

Although the vote was 170-0 in Parliament, many of its 328 members, primarily Kurds and Sunnis, did not attend the session and did not vote, showing the division in Parliament on the demands to oust American troops. While groups that grew out of Shiite militia organizations have pushed hard for the expulsion, Sunni Muslim factions and the Kurds wanted the United States to stay.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/w...mani-iraq.html

Many Iraqis resent the role of Iran in their politics and would like to have the U.S. remain as a counter to that. This is not a good move for them. But after recent events (including chosen one's call with their PM) I think they feel the U.S. can't be trusted.

[nsacpi]

If we leave Baghdad we have a lot more money to use both domestically and other foreign pursuits.

But then we lose our strategic position in Iraq.

What has more value?

Classic cost benefit question. My answer is to tailor a presence that gives you good bang for the buck (sorry for choice of language). But this presumes we are capable of making wise decisions about adjacent matters--Syria for example. Part of the benefit of a presence in Iraq is ability to operate in Syria. But given what we've done there I don't think chosen one has a clue when it comes to thinking strategically.

[thethe]

Lawmakers in Iraq voted on Sunday to require the government to end the presence of American troops in the country after the United States ordered the killing of the Iranian leader of the elite Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, on Iraqi soil.

The decision to heed the demands of angry Shiite factions and politicians came as hundreds of thousands of mourners poured into the streets of Iran to pay their respects to General Suleimani, the most powerful figure in the country after the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The vote is not final until Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi of Iraq signs the bill. But since he drafted the language and submitted the bill to Parliament, there was little doubt he would sign it.

Although the vote was 170-0 in Parliament, many of its 328 members, primarily Kurds and Sunnis, did not attend the session and did not vote, showing the division in Parliament on the demands to oust American troops. While groups that grew out of Shiite militia organizations have pushed hard for the expulsion, Sunni Muslim factions and the Kurds wanted the United States to stay.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/w...mani-iraq.html

Many Iraqis resent the role of Iran in their politics and would like to have the U.S. remain as a counter to that. This is not a good move for them. But after recent events (including chosen one's call with their PM) I think they feel the U.S. can't be trusted.

To me it just shows Iran has been better than the US at using their influence.

This person should have been killed many times over. The blowback because Iran has been successful in pushing their influence shouldn't change the calculus on killing a bad person.

[thethe]

Classic cost benefit question. My answer is to tailor a presence that gives you good bang for the buck (sorry for choice of language). But this presumes we are capable of making wise decisions about adjacent matters--Syria for example. Part of the benefit of a presence in Iraq is ability to operate in Syria. But given what we've done there I don't think chosen one has a clue when it comes to thinking strategically.

Who has proven to be a good strategic lead on the middle east the past 60 years?

[nsacpi]

Who has proven to be a good strategic lead on the middle east the past 60 years?

For the most part we've had a consistent and successful policy in the Middle East. People will raise their eyebrows at this assertion. But for the most part we've played a stabilizing role in a very volatile part of the world while limiting the influence of our adversaries.

[thethe]

For the most part we've had a consistent and successful policy in the Middle East. People will raise their eyebrows at this assertion. But for the most part we've played a stabilizing role in a very volatile part of the world while limiting the influence of our adversaries.

I think the last thing we could lay claim to is acting as a stabilizing force. Yes, we dont know what the alternative looks like but I find it challenging to think it could have been much worse without the US.

[nsacpi]

I think the last thing we could lay claim to is acting as a stabilizing force. Yes, we dont know what the alternative looks like but I find it challenging to think it could have been much worse without the US.

there are all sorts of worse alternatives that are not difficult to imagine...radical Islamists taking over one of the oil rich countries...Saddam holding on to Kuwait...no peace agreement between Egypt and Israel...more Arab-Israeli wars

[goldfly]

The great negotiator got Iran to leave the nuclear deal

so much winning

[thethe]

there are all sorts of worse alternatives that are not difficult to imagine...radical Islamists taking over one of the oil rich countries...Saddam holding on to Kuwait...no peace agreement between Egypt and Israel...more Arab-Israeli wars

Saddam staying in power would have been a net positive to the region.

[thethe]

After initially rejecting the Suleimani option on Dec. 28 and authorizing airstrikes on an Iranian-backed Shia militia group instead, a few days later Mr. Trump watched, fuming, as television reports showed Iranian-backed attacks on the American Embassy in Baghdad, according to Defense Department and administration officials.

By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme option. Top Pentagon officials were stunned.

There are so many journalists that wish hard on the US. Enemy of the people.