A better question would be, why is the USA illegally occupying bases in Syria and Iraq? This just invites attacks by local militias. Such a waste of blood and treasure.
What's unacceptable is that American troops are in Iraq, Jordan, and Syria in the first place. We Americans have no business in that part of the world, and a lot of work that needs to be done right here at home.
East Palestine, Maui, Flint. The Mexican border. Anyone? Buehler?
Our national defense apparatus is on autopilot. We do what we do because that’s what we do. Our figurehead is eighty one years old and can barely stammer his way through a sentence. The state and defense departments are run by empty shits (typo and it stays) and just follow along. We have bases there? Must be a good reason somehow. Anyway, they’ve been there a long time, best keep them there or we will look weak. After all, everything is going smoothly so far...
The authors explain how that US bases in Iraq and Syria are indefensible against an even moderately determined local opposition - let alone one with the resources of a potentially antagonized regional power like Iran.
Yet the non-sequitur suggestion is made that US should make an overt escalation against Iran and/or its immediate allies within Iraq.
It should also be remembered that the legal justification for US presence is tenuous in Iraq and nonexistent in Syria. ("because ISIS" is not convincing, especially as most of the locals fighting against ISIS, with the possible exception of the Kurds, now want the US out)
There is no squaring this circle. The only workable solution is for US forces to depart Iraq and Syria in full, and for US to take the mindset of a modus vivendi with Iran -- as the GCC has already begun to do.
If we brought the military home from the Middle East, the Houthis would probably not take to their dhows and sail to invade Cape Cod. The "Iran allied entities would have an even more difficult time crossing the water. As to Iran itself, lets watch for the Persian navy off the coast. It may be a long wait.
Clear on the first point, and reads to me like a strong case as to why it's a daunting task.
"Then you need to defend them" - Indeed. But would it not result in a return to the situation of the mid 2000's - except with today's less favorable technological balance? Hence I believe the logic leads to your second alternative
I must have missed the news report. When exactly did Iran declare war on the USA? Are you advocating for exclamation like the warmonger Lindsay Graham?
So, over 100 strikes against the bases in Iraq and Syria since 7 Oct, and they are under-defended? That sounds like gross incompetence or the bases are being used as 'tripwires," for expanding the conflict.
A conclusion searching for evidence. At least the "Iraq is chockful of WMD" story was "supported" by more elaborate analysis and justifications.
Since we're talking about Iraq, the United States also insisted all the while that it was not seeking war on Iraq, even as it was obvious that it was looking for any possible pretext in order to make aggressive war on that country.
I'm struck how Western media always preface Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others opposed to US neoimperialism in MENA by 'Iran-backed', but don't say 'US-backed Israel'.
Sure, the various forces in Iran's 'Axis of Resistance' are Iranian proxies or clients in a wider geostrategic confrontation dating back to 1953 and beyond.
And Israel is a - or perhaps, the - US proxy or client in the same contest.
And all these irrascible proxies can be pretty wayward in the messy tribal dynamics of the Middle East that drove T E Lawrence crazy.
But rather than getting lost in escalating rhetoric, maybe the main actors should work out better their options and interests.
I welcome the fact that both Washington and Tehran seem to be moving in that direction, recognizing that an expanded war spreading from Gaza is in neither of their interests.
I understand why Netanyahu wants to drag America into such a war, because the end of war is the end of his career.
But I still don't really understand Stephen's apparent alignment with Netanyahu, especially given his critical perspective on US-backed Ukraine, whose court trio of delusional messiah Zelensky, corrupt boss Yermak, and psychopathic enforcer Budanov have just had their coup against Zaluzhny blessed by the visiting Queen of the Neocons who wants expanded war in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and almost everywhere else.
"With respect to Iran, the Biden administration’s failure to act on hundreds of Iranian-planned and ordered provocations means the situation will continue to deteriorate, and more American lives will be lost.
The policy is unacceptable."
Stephen:
As with Dave Goldman, you lose your mind whenever you start talking about events in this location in the Middle East. Apparently you are all in on letting a tiny little country of dubious moral standing drag the US into another catastrophic war.
The US can't even produce paleo-tech ordinance for Ukrainian Armed Forces. Yet you want the US to escalate knowing full well that this time around Iran and it's allies are not gonna' turn the other cheek. Once this thing gets started it will be very hard to turn it off. And that means Hizbollah launching something in the order of 100,000 guided rocket and missiles on Israel.
The increasing sophistication and decreasing cost of drone technology will over time make all of America's overseas military facilities undefendable. This is how China and Russia will strike back against American "dual containment" fantasies.
What an white supremasist, colonial arrogance. The writer thinks that the american troops should be protected better in Iraq, Syria and Jordan? What are they doing there again? And of course the support for the terror entity called Israel is crucial, as Biden said many times, Imagine if there was no Israel, how could we influence the region? By influence he ment dominate, colonise, destroy and conquer. The writer of this smear article feels apparently entitled to be present military in the Middle East, or anywhere in the world.
Setting up a bunch of military bases in countries on the other side of the planet and then going to war with anyone who tries to kick them out is pretty much the exact opposite of how a sane and ethical military would be used.
And what are we doing manning bases in Jordan exactly? How many secret undeclared wars are we fighting?
A better question would be, why is the USA illegally occupying bases in Syria and Iraq? This just invites attacks by local militias. Such a waste of blood and treasure.
What's unacceptable is that American troops are in Iraq, Jordan, and Syria in the first place. We Americans have no business in that part of the world, and a lot of work that needs to be done right here at home.
East Palestine, Maui, Flint. The Mexican border. Anyone? Buehler?
"Iran now controls Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon."
This statement, in a nutshell, describes the main geostrategic outcome of our invasion of Iraq in 2003.
And what will be the unintended consequences of the war (or wars) that our so-called 'leadership' in DC are so desperate to get involved in?
I will wager that, whatever they are, they won't benefit the American people.
Our national defense apparatus is on autopilot. We do what we do because that’s what we do. Our figurehead is eighty one years old and can barely stammer his way through a sentence. The state and defense departments are run by empty shits (typo and it stays) and just follow along. We have bases there? Must be a good reason somehow. Anyway, they’ve been there a long time, best keep them there or we will look weak. After all, everything is going smoothly so far...
it is certain that underlying assumptions about mission, base protection and geopolitical issues have neither been reviewed or reevaluated.
The authors explain how that US bases in Iraq and Syria are indefensible against an even moderately determined local opposition - let alone one with the resources of a potentially antagonized regional power like Iran.
Yet the non-sequitur suggestion is made that US should make an overt escalation against Iran and/or its immediate allies within Iraq.
It should also be remembered that the legal justification for US presence is tenuous in Iraq and nonexistent in Syria. ("because ISIS" is not convincing, especially as most of the locals fighting against ISIS, with the possible exception of the Kurds, now want the US out)
There is no squaring this circle. The only workable solution is for US forces to depart Iraq and Syria in full, and for US to take the mindset of a modus vivendi with Iran -- as the GCC has already begun to do.
This is a grab bag of issues. If you have bases then you need to defend them. Otherwise don't have them. I thought I was perfectly clear about that.
Why must we have bases at all in the Middle East?
If we brought the military home from the Middle East, the Houthis would probably not take to their dhows and sail to invade Cape Cod. The "Iran allied entities would have an even more difficult time crossing the water. As to Iran itself, lets watch for the Persian navy off the coast. It may be a long wait.
Clear on the first point, and reads to me like a strong case as to why it's a daunting task.
"Then you need to defend them" - Indeed. But would it not result in a return to the situation of the mid 2000's - except with today's less favorable technological balance? Hence I believe the logic leads to your second alternative
I must have missed the news report. When exactly did Iran declare war on the USA? Are you advocating for exclamation like the warmonger Lindsay Graham?
So, over 100 strikes against the bases in Iraq and Syria since 7 Oct, and they are under-defended? That sounds like gross incompetence or the bases are being used as 'tripwires," for expanding the conflict.
My vote: both are true.
If Iranian-aligned forces are fighting ISIS, then it makes sense that the US supports ISIS as the Russians have been claiming for years.
A conclusion searching for evidence. At least the "Iraq is chockful of WMD" story was "supported" by more elaborate analysis and justifications.
Since we're talking about Iraq, the United States also insisted all the while that it was not seeking war on Iraq, even as it was obvious that it was looking for any possible pretext in order to make aggressive war on that country.
You have a reading problem. There is plenty of evidence and also what we don't know.
Are you saying there is plenty of evidence Iraq had WMD? If yes, kindly provide links to said evidence.
So you're presenting a thought terminating cliche and an argument from ignorance.
????
I'm struck how Western media always preface Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others opposed to US neoimperialism in MENA by 'Iran-backed', but don't say 'US-backed Israel'.
Sure, the various forces in Iran's 'Axis of Resistance' are Iranian proxies or clients in a wider geostrategic confrontation dating back to 1953 and beyond.
And Israel is a - or perhaps, the - US proxy or client in the same contest.
And all these irrascible proxies can be pretty wayward in the messy tribal dynamics of the Middle East that drove T E Lawrence crazy.
But rather than getting lost in escalating rhetoric, maybe the main actors should work out better their options and interests.
I welcome the fact that both Washington and Tehran seem to be moving in that direction, recognizing that an expanded war spreading from Gaza is in neither of their interests.
I understand why Netanyahu wants to drag America into such a war, because the end of war is the end of his career.
But I still don't really understand Stephen's apparent alignment with Netanyahu, especially given his critical perspective on US-backed Ukraine, whose court trio of delusional messiah Zelensky, corrupt boss Yermak, and psychopathic enforcer Budanov have just had their coup against Zaluzhny blessed by the visiting Queen of the Neocons who wants expanded war in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and almost everywhere else.
Interesting thread.
I think perhaps I now better understand Stephen's alignment with Netanyahu.
T E Lawrence summed it up a century ago: tribal.
Stephen wrote:
"With respect to Iran, the Biden administration’s failure to act on hundreds of Iranian-planned and ordered provocations means the situation will continue to deteriorate, and more American lives will be lost.
The policy is unacceptable."
Stephen:
As with Dave Goldman, you lose your mind whenever you start talking about events in this location in the Middle East. Apparently you are all in on letting a tiny little country of dubious moral standing drag the US into another catastrophic war.
The US can't even produce paleo-tech ordinance for Ukrainian Armed Forces. Yet you want the US to escalate knowing full well that this time around Iran and it's allies are not gonna' turn the other cheek. Once this thing gets started it will be very hard to turn it off. And that means Hizbollah launching something in the order of 100,000 guided rocket and missiles on Israel.
And then what? Where do we go from there?
The increasing sophistication and decreasing cost of drone technology will over time make all of America's overseas military facilities undefendable. This is how China and Russia will strike back against American "dual containment" fantasies.
What an white supremasist, colonial arrogance. The writer thinks that the american troops should be protected better in Iraq, Syria and Jordan? What are they doing there again? And of course the support for the terror entity called Israel is crucial, as Biden said many times, Imagine if there was no Israel, how could we influence the region? By influence he ment dominate, colonise, destroy and conquer. The writer of this smear article feels apparently entitled to be present military in the Middle East, or anywhere in the world.
Ridiculous
Setting up a bunch of military bases in countries on the other side of the planet and then going to war with anyone who tries to kick them out is pretty much the exact opposite of how a sane and ethical military would be used.