The Iraq Response Divide

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Iraqi troops stand in rows holding their weapons as they arrive to support the Sunni anti-Al-Qaeda militia Sahwa in its fight against anti-government militants. June 21, 2014 (AFP/Getty)
Secretary of State Kerry is in Iraq today to try and help resolve the crisis roiling the country. Back home, lawmakers are debating how the US should provide military assistance, including a Rand Paul - John McCain split that may have implications for the 2016 presidential race. Yochi Dreazen, managing editor for news at Foreign Policy, discusses the latest.


Yochi Dreazen

Comments [13]


I can't believe how uninsightful this conversation was. This build up is solely about strategically destroying Syria and Iran, end of story. Assad was winning the war, with the help of Iran. That would have meant an Iran-Syria-Iraq alliance. They wanted any excuse to bomb Assad to oblivion. They used the gas attack. That back-fired, so on to Plan B. In Iraq they had already deliberately cultivated sectarian conflict for long term advantage, in much the same way the British did in Ireland. They left Iraq knowing it would fall apart, it was their booby trap in case anyone like Maliki started getting difficult, which he did. They had done everything in the past 10 years to ensure Iraq couldn't survive without US involvement, if the Shia act up, you fund some money to the Sunni and vice versa. Can you smell the oil yet???? Kerry just paid off their boys in Egypt to shut up and stay out of things. So now we have a regional war about to break out that has been a long time in the construction. Expect drones, but also expect those "mini" nukes they have been biting at the chomp to experiment with in Iran. Your tax dollars hard at work. The Saudis are happy, the Israelis are happy. Meanwhile they're cutting off water to people on welfare in Detroit. Still think you're in a democracy, or even a civilized country?? Oh and don't expect anything from Ron Paul - anyone courting Rupert Murdoch's approval is a corporate lackey through and through, and these wars are all about the corporate money.

Jun. 24 2014 12:21 PM

Edward hits it perfectly -

"When Arabs can't get along with fellow Arabs, it's not a shock that they can't play well with others."

But it's always Israel's fault in NPR/NYT Land. (They are SHOCKED!!!)

And the Village Idiot in the White House spent his first 2 years telling us that the Palestinian/Israeli issue was the main "roadblock" to a peaceful Middle East, LOL.

Jun. 24 2014 11:34 AM
Edward from Washington Heights AKA pretentious Hudson Heights

What we see going on in Iraq is a mirror of what is going on in Syria - where 160,000+ Arabs have killed fellow Arabs.

Arabia is a boiling mess of murderous rivalries that has been going on for 1,400 years.

When Arabs can't get along with fellow Arabs, it's not a shock that they can't play well with others.

Jun. 24 2014 11:18 AM
Robert Nordquist from Glen cove, NY

Bob Nordquist email r.nordquist@verizon.net

It's would be interesting to explore Isis vs ISIL. To most in the US, ISIS refers only to Iraq and Syrian areas and, given the current issues, they are not so concerned. However, I understand the correct interpretation of its Arabic name is Levante. Since the Levante historically is the area stretching from as far as Egypt through Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, northern Iraq and the Kurdish areas, ISIL then takes on a more significant and dangerous meaning. Given their desires to return their controlled areas to a more ancient form governing structure, it would be wrong to assume that ISIL intends to focus their territory grab to just Iraq and Syria.

What are your thoughts on this? Would you ask your guests their opinions?

Jun. 24 2014 10:57 AM

How CAN we expect our military to fight in a country where the country's own military won't fight? Decrease military spending and put money into training people for jobs in building our infrastructure. Or send YOUR kids into the military.

Jun. 24 2014 10:43 AM
Ed from Larchmont

If some were left there was a chance there would be no ISIS surge- apparently there would have been an ISIS surge in 2008 unless there had been a surge by the U.S. under George Bush.

Jun. 24 2014 10:34 AM
Ed from Larchmont

The defeat of Eric Cantor (sp?) was mainly caused by Eric Cantor not voting Conservative at all, not primarily a tea party issue.

Jun. 24 2014 10:25 AM


Jun. 24 2014 10:20 AM

So if you don't want to got to war every time you are an isolationist.

Libertarian view of open borders is great...as long as there isn't a welfare state to support immigrants over taxed people.

Jun. 24 2014 10:17 AM

The Democrats have a war first mentality too

Jun. 24 2014 10:15 AM
Bobby GG from East Village

Rand Paul is right. We should stay out. It's not our fight. There is no winning for us there. We've already made enough of a mess in Iraq. The war will be brutal, but it will be their brutality, not ours.

ISIS is not an existential threat. That is paranoiac hyperbole and not a sound footing on which to form policy.

Jun. 24 2014 10:11 AM

Stop using the term Isolationist incorrectly.

Jun. 24 2014 10:08 AM

Ron Paul! Right right right right.

Jun. 24 2014 10:06 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.