US will not send troops to help Iraq fight al Qaeda: Kerry


#1

The United States will help Iraq fight an al Qaeda-linked group that seized the city of Fallujah in the west of the country, but will not send American troops, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday.

“We will stand with the government of Iraq and with others who will push back against their efforts to destabilize,” Kerry told journalists as he left Jerusalem for Jordan and Saudi Arabia. “We are going to do everything that is possible. I will not go into the details.”

The Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL), which took control of Fallujah and Ramadi over last week, is one of the strongest rebel groups in Syria and has imposed a strict version of Islamic law in territories it holds.

U.S. intelligence officials said Friday the situation in western Iraq was “extremely dire” after the radical forces raised their flag in the town of Fallujah – site of two of the bloodiest battles during the Iraq war – and gained control of the city.

Kerry admitted that the U.S. was “very, very concerned” by the fighting, and called ISIL “the most dangerous players in that region.”

worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/05/22186047-us-will-not-send-troops-to-help-iraq-fight-al-qaeda-kerry?lite


#2

Positively no. What is in the American government’s best interests is not in Iraq’s best interests. Al-Maliki can handle this and should.


#3

Why are troops still in Afghanistan?


#4

anything kerry says i doubt

why isnt this kerry kicked out of the catholic church for supporting funding rebels in syria

hes a snake

his real name isnt kerry and hes not irish


#5

If it’s part of the War on Terror, I daresay it would be justifiable to help, but another occupation of Iraq is out of the question.

Yes, Mr. Saddam Hussein kept certain bad elements in check, but those days are over and Iraq ultimately needs to fight their own battles.


#6

A good question, considering al quedia is popping up elsewhere.


#7

AQ is popping up elsewhere because we are still in Afghanistan. If we pull out of Afghanistan, like we did in Iraq, prior to the conditions being set for it not to become a neutral to friendly location for them we will see AQ return to Afghanistan. The problem is that the American populace doesn’t have the patience to wait for the proper conditions to be set.


#8

Even if the US wanted to get involved (which I doubt very much,) it could not do so in a small way without making the instability even worse. And I seriously doubt Iraq wants the US back in a big way. After all, they kicked us out three years ago despite lengthy negotiations which had been conducted under two different presidents.


#9

I don’t think we shouldn’t. After all, wouldn’t it constitute an unjust war?


#10

America didn;t break it. It is not America’s responsibility to fix it.

But if Falujah presents itself as another opportunity to kill terrorists who have congregated there,it is a good opportunity to take.


#11

Absolutely. :thumbsup:

Given the past history between the two countries, I don’t think going in again is a good idea. Sooner or later, Iraq has to come to terms with its own troubles, like most other countries do.


#12

As an outsider I’d say the best possible solution for Al-Maliki would be to totally isolate Fallujah, cut off all supplies, power, etc, encourage people to leave or not aid, ISIL then after a few weeks perhaps, go in with all out force and totally exterminate the Jihadists. Afterwards I think they’ll have to extend a good degree of autonomy to the Sunni tribes in the area.

                                                     If Al-Anbar province becomes a Salafist state, I'll almost guarantee that Jordan will be next.

#13

LOL. So we didn’t remove the previous regime without actually having a plan for the after effects; and we didn’t help prop up that regime up until its invasion of Kuwait? Or should I read your comment as “America didn’t break it because it was already broken when the artificial state of Iraq came into existence at the end of WW1 when the UK and France divided up the Middle East as spoils of war and the UK really didn’t do much to actually establish a stable state or society there”?


#14

You should read it as Iraqis are fully adult people that don’t need to be primped and coddle and felt sorry for in order that Westerners of various persuasions can use them as examples of how this or that policy of our political opponents was not good enough.

Iraqi history and problems of national identity are not a lot different than anyone elses, We all come with a history that comes about as the people of the world juggle their policies up against one another.

As long as we hold people outside of Iraq as responsible, then we are involved in the racism of low expectations that Iraqis do not have the right stuff to be masters of their own destiny.

:slight_smile:

Iraq was provided with a great opportunity to actually do something with their country.
It is in their hands now.


#15

How long do you think it takes to establish a legit government (i.e. one the populace believes in and trusts) and deal with internal issues that the previous regime had used for several decades to divide the populace against itself as a means of securing it’s power? The less than a decade the Iraqis had to pull together as a people and create a society and government that they can believe in and trust isn’t what I would label as a “great opportunity.”


#16

I’m not sure we can so quickly blame Iraqis for what’s going on there now. Russia, for example, is a veritable police state with very good organization, a pretty homogenous populace, and does not have a powerful next-door neighbor bent on dominating it, and yet terrorists are still able to operate there.

Iraq has Iranian-influenced groups among the Shia, and Iranian “boots on the ground”. We were once perceived as the defenders of those in Anbar province. We left, and now AQ is back, no doubt financed by Saudi Arabia and the very tribal leaders who once saw us as their defense against both AQ and Iran.

We probably can’t go back. Who would trust us again after we left them in the lurch? But no one needs to worry about it because, having condemned our action in Iraq as “Bush’s war”, and, with media help, convinced Americans that isolationism is our only recourse in the world, we won’t go back.

The Iran/Sunni guerilla war will continue in our absence, and will get far more bloody than it is now. Now it’s Iran’s turn to battle AQ for control of at least part of Iraq as well as Syria and Lebanon. Neither will conduct themselves with the concern for civilians that we did. Iran’s client, Assad, proved that on Iran’s part, and AQ fighters in Syria proved it for their part.

The butchery now going on in the M.E. and that will continue to worsen, is on the heads of those in the current U.S. administration and those in the media who thought more of political gain than of anything else.


#17

I think we need to go back a few steps. First, the way that the poll was worded, I could not answer, because the answer closest to what I wanted blamed America for it. It is the same wording that was used against the Bush administration "you break it, your buy it:
I don’t blame Bush;therefore I reject that formula.
Now, just because I do not blame Bush, to say that Iraqis are responsible for their own country is not the same as blaming them either. What it means is that this is the responsibility of the Iraqis to fix. It doesn’t mean that anyone deserves to have their mosques and churches blown up, but this is the kind of thing which is the responsibility of the Iraqis themselves to deal with.

Iraq has Iranian-influenced groups among the Shia, and Iranian “boots on the ground”. We were once perceived as the defenders of those in Anbar province. We left, and now AQ is back, no doubt financed by Saudi Arabia and the very tribal leaders who once saw us as their defense against both AQ and Iran.

Obama is an unwise leader of an unwise administration, who saw Bush as the problem and the Iranians as potential allies.
This will not be the first time a Democratic administration has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, in order to spite a previous Republican administration.

We probably can’t go back. Who would trust us again after we left them in the lurch? But no one needs to worry about it because, having condemned our action in Iraq as “Bush’s war”, and, with media help, convinced Americans that isolationism is our only recourse in the world, we won’t go back.

The criticism that I have against Iraqi policy is that they were fully cognizant of the American political dynamic, and that administration did nothing to keep the Bush administration from becoming increasingly isolated both domestically and internationally. Inasmuch as this has been portrayed as a war of occupation in the world press, it was contingent on the Iraqi government, and press and people to assure the world that America and Bush were there as allies.
They failed to do so, thus ensuring their alienation from any more American assistance.

The Iran/Sunni guerilla war will continue in our absence, and will get far more bloody than it is now. Now it’s Iran’s turn to battle AQ for control of at least part of Iraq as well as Syria and Lebanon. Neither will conduct themselves with the concern for civilians that we did. Iran’s client, Assad, proved that on Iran’s part, and AQ fighters in Syria proved it for their part.

Certainly not. Torture and human rights are no longer a concern for the critics of these things, as long as Israel and America cannot be bashed on these things

The butchery now going on in the M.E. and that will continue to worsen, is on the heads of those in the current U.S. administration and those in the media who thought more of political gain than of anything else.

In the interest of charity, I will merely reiterate my position that the Obama administration and those in society that enable it, have acted unwisely.
This neighborhood is perpetually on the edge of descent into chaos. America can no longer be considered a player due to the very weak leadership of Obama, and the haphazard policy of his administration.


#18

false


#19

I guess it depends on when a person considers that a changed name is now the real name. haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/when-kerry-was-kohn-the-jewish-roots-of-john-kerry.premium-1.489209

Puts me to mind of a story from my childhood. My father had a business acquaintence whose last name was Cittadino. I remember one time when Mr. Cittadino announced that his name really wasn’t Cittadino. I can’t remember what it really was. Anyway, when he came to this country, he couldn’t speak English. A man asked him something he couldn’t understand. Mr. Cittadino kept telling the man that he wanted to be a citizen. “Citizen” in Italian is Cittadino. So, okay, the man, who was actually asking his name, put it down as “Cittadino”.

When Mr. Cittadino finally figured out much later what had happened, he thought, well, that wasn’t too bad a name to have. So he kept it.


#20

Reminds me of the story of the Chinese American man named Hal Halverson.
He was lining up behind a big Swedish immigrant being processed. When it was his turn, when they asked him what his name was, he replied “Sam Ting”.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.