Iraq update: water over the dam
On Saturday I linked to a post by Richard Fernandez describing how ISIS is threatening the dams of Iraq. Sure enough, right on schedule, we learn that the Mosul Dam has been captured by the terrorist group.
Ace writes:
However, I think blowing up the Mosul dam would mostly affect only Mosul — and ISIS is currently unlikely to do that, as they control Mosul.
On the other hand, it means that there is virtually no chance of driving ISIS out without them destroying the city as they flee.
But Fernandez wrote of danger to Baghdad itself:
Iraq’s biggest dam, the Mosul dam, is right next to a hotbed of Islamic State activity and poses catastrophic risk even if the terrorists don’t open the floodgates or blow it up. If the dam fails, scientists say Mosul could be completely flooded within hours and a 15-foot wall of water could crash into Baghdad.
Fernandez insicates that ISIS is also intent on capturing the Haditha Dam, and quotes an article in Foreign Policy:
A compromised Haditha Dam would be a serious threat to western and southern Iraq: It provides power for the capital and controls water supplies for irrigation downstream. Using Haditha, ISIS could flood farmland and disrupt drinking water supplies like it did with a smaller dam near Fallujah this spring.
It’s hard to read this and realize that there was a good chance to stop ISIS, had it been nipped in the bud. But Obama refused to do so, because he refused to leave a small residual force in Iraq for purposes like this.
Obama should be roundly condemned for losing Iraq after it was won!
Supposedly this ISIS army only has 10,000 fighters and we knew back in January this was coming. We could have wiped them out.
This is unforgivable!
Bad stuff is coming. Really bad.
Half of ISILevant’s fighters came from Hussein’s funding, almost.
We spent $25 billion training the Iraqi army. As of 2010, Baghdad had at its disposal 14 trained divisions – more than enough to defend the country from an invasion.
But that huge force dissolved at first contact with the enemy. What does that say about the viability of the artificial entity we call “Iraq”?
New Orleans turned into a cannibal eating paradise for Democrat crooked cops and criminals, or at least that’s what America’s aristocracy said and got away with.
What does that say about the viability of the artificial entity we call “America”?
Old Rebel: “But that huge force dissolved at first contact with the enemy. What does that say about the viability of the artificial entity we call “Iraq”?”
Yes, there are three religious groups in Iraq. They don’t much like or trust each other. Saddam, a Sunni, ran rough shod over the Shia and Kurds. Maliki, a Shia, wanted to get some pay back. After we left, he put all Shia generals in charge of units that had Sunnis in them. What could have gone wrong? Even Obama might have guessed that Maliki needed a lot of “guidance” in how to maintain his army. But it didn’t involve golf or picking sports brackets so it was too much effort to figure that out.
A good way to operate the army in Iraq would be to put Sunnis in the Anbar area, Kurds in the Northeast, and Shias in the rest of the country with a joint command of all thee sects in Baghdad. That way the armies would be fighting for their home turf and the money/arms would be properly allotted from Baghdad. But Maliki wanted all the power and money in Shia hands.
President Obama is waiting very patiently for Maliki to see the error of his ways. It appears, in fact, he’s patient enough to let Maliki and the Iraq project fail. Which of course would prove his (and your) point that the whole thing was Boosh’s terrible idea.
As the “good guys’ ” moves are increasingly restricted, we may find that the only options we have left are horrific.
Probably not neutron bombs, since that would give ISIS time to blow the dams. Something more lethal, like chemical weapons.
Nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure.
— Ellen Ripley
Old Rebel,
It tells me that like parenting, $$$ is no substitute for time X engagement. And billions of dollars in equipment and funding is no substitute for US soldiers, boots on the ground.
Neo: “But Obama refused to do so, because he refused to leave a small residual force in Iraq for purposes like this.”
Not just that. Look at Obama’s missteps and missed opportunities in his approach to the Arab Spring, especially with Libya and Syria.
Eric,
The messiah made no missteps and missed no opportunities. He has been tip toeing through the tulips on the way to the new caliphate. “… one of the prettiest sounds on the earth at sunset.”
“It’s hard to read this and realize that there was a good chance to stop ISIS, had it been nipped in the bud. But Obama refused to do so, because he refused to leave a small residual force in Iraq for purposes like this.”
What ISIS has done until now is much worse than what the nazis did before, and I do say before, the war.
So how do we compare to a Chamberlain (who I consider to be a honorable person who tried to prevent a war in the wrong way (*)), we who have the example of the nazis, and before the nazis, the communists?
If you want to know how a nazi Germany was possible you only have to follow the events of today. Mind, the fact that it is always “How was Nazi Germany possible”, and never “How was Communist Russia possible” might also give a clue.
(*) As scumbag I would nominate Roosevelt who, among other things, by his recognition of the USSR regime in 11/1933 (just after that regime murdered millions of its own citizens, ‘Roosevelt, hat er es nicht gewusst?’) opened the way to the appeasement of the dictators.
Just remember, it wasn’t Roosevelt that won WWII. He pulled an unwilling nation into a war of his own choosing, and only the nation’s fire and Will obtained victory. That and the A bomb.
The A bomb.
Japan tried to surrender before the atomic bomb.
They ran into the “Unconditionel Surrender” fetish of the USA, another legacy of Roosevelt.
I believe the only sticking point was the position of the Emperor.
If the USA had had a true statesman at its head, like a Churchill, than Japan might well have surrendered before the A-bomb and even more important, before the opportunistic Russian war declaration (one of the results of that is the North Korean red Fuhrer slave state, and probably Mao’s China)
Tha A-bomb was a war crime (if not then the term “war-crime” has no meaning), but then, in war sh*t happens, it doesn’t make me less pro-USA. After all, the armies of the USA were truly liberating armies.
But this “Unconditionel Surrender” fetish, that I have come to consider a “crime against humanity”.
Phil D:
Wrong.
See this. Excerpt:
“Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily necessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan’s air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.”
“…”
“In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him “to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind.” But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that “the Emperor must not be touched.” Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to “show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter.” Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless” …
Marc Weber, Institute for Historical Review.
“http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html”
Mind, I don’t know who Max Weber is, and I don’t know what exactly the Institute for Historical Review represents. I found this with google in about 10 seconds.
Is there anything in the citation which is wrong?
(there is more of course).
The article anyway only confirms what I knew already. In fact, I knew about the surrender ouvertures of Japan via Moskow, nicely sabotaged by Stalin, but didn’t know about the ouvertures mentioned in the excerpt.
So the question becomes, were there peace ouvertures and was there a possibility that Japan would surrender as good as “Unconditionel”?
What I do know is that Japan was basically powerless in 8/1945. So the atomic bombs were a short cut.
So where am I wrong;
War-crime?
I will repeat this, if the A-bombs weren’t war crimes than the term has no meaning. It reduces war to its essential, you do the enemy what the enemy can’t prevent, and vice versa. And there are no rules. And for the rest “Vae Victis”.
Do the hypothetical, suppose the germans had the atomic bomb and let one of them explode in the harbour of New York. In what universe would the USA NOT consider this as a crime?
Ps. In your article you also mention Dresden.
Well, I considered it a war crime, but in preparation of my answer I have read the wiki-article. So perhaps not. Anyway, as far as I’m concerned it (Dresden that is) comes under the heading “in war sh*t happens”. What I dislike in this sort of thing is when a nitwit (and I don’t mean you!) brags about as if it’s a good thing.
To repeat from my previous comment; “it doesn’t make me less pro-USA. After all, the armies of the USA were truly liberating armies.”
Why this comment? I consider that the problems of today are a direct result of what happened in the aftermath of the war. Stalin was as responsible as Hitler for WWII. The fact the western allies chose to “forget” this made them complicit in his crimes (among other things).
Chamberlain is remembered because he not only stood by in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, but gave it its fiat. Thus empowering Hitler.
But what about the Western Allies? They became “Super-Chamberlains”, thus empowering the left. Think of it like this. What if the marxist was held at the same abhorrence as the nazi? To make it more personal, you, and others like you, who were (“mildly”) left, and thus co-responsible for the situation today (something those who were hit on the head by 9/2001 tend to forget), would that have prevented you?
So you may well ask, what could they have done?
Well, not start WWIII that’s for sure but the same thing Chamberlain could have done, simply not accepted the fait accompli. But they accepted, and the western moral degeneracy started there.
My thinking on questions like these can be summarized in;
“Mind, the fact that it is always “How was Nazi Germany possible”, and never “How was Communist Russia possible” might also give a clue.”
And for this article about ISIS in;
“So how do we compare to a Chamberlain …”
I have stop somewhere so, sorry for this “art”-like answer.
I’m a long time lurker. I have made one, perhaps two, comments before. I’m flemish, rather a lapsed catholic (well, I live in one of the worst wastelands created by the “Spirit of Vatican II”) but define myself as a lapsed catholic of today but, hopefully, catholic again tomorrow. In other words, I consider “Catholicism” to be one of the best and sanest things in the world and at times the only sane thing.
Perhaps too much information but there it is.
Paul D:
Read this and this.
Supposing I’m meant with “Paul D”
“I will repeat this, if the A-bombs weren’t war crimes than the term has no meaning”
We will have to agree to disagree on this.
Mind, the discussion started only because I mentioned Roosevelt and the fact that I loath the guy. The article was about ISIS and our non-reaction on it.
Phil D…
EVERY SECOND of Tokyo’s delay was killing…
In (1945) American political parlance “protecting the Emperor” has no meaning… other than the Japanese GOVERNMENT shall be maintained, for it had long been established as the sole protector of the Japanese Emperor.
The Japanese diplomats NEVER EVER SAID: “We’ll sign off if the Emperor — and only the Emperor — can escape (fully justifiable) prosecution for war crimes — and remain in a titular figurehead position” — or any variation on such a construction.
The missive dated May 7 is most curious, no?
Nazi Germany has been dust for a full week. The last few days have been spent as the Nazi generals sought out various surrender desks to sign off on.
&&&
American accounts of the Nazi surrender are politically charged: The Nazis actually totally surrendered May 5th to Montgomery. He was the closest commanding top flight general to the last ‘capital’ of Nazi Germany.
Those documents — in black letter ink — provided that Nazi forces gave up everywhere entirely. The lack of Soviet or American officers was put out by Monty as diminishing the nature of Jodl’s surrender — AFTER his staff gave him some feedback from Ike’s GHQ as to how Jodl’s ‘Snap Surrender’ just would not do.
[ It wasn’t even photographed for the newsreels… or if it was… the film was burned. (I go with door #2)]
Ike made sure to invite the highest ranking Soviet generals within his GHQ. They were major generals, staff officers (finks) assigned to rat out all SHAEF events back to Moscow.
Stalin was furious — and had the same event re-staged back in Berlin — with Marshal Zukov in ranking attendance. Most Soviet citizens never saw one second of the SHAEF ceremony. IIRC the two (Soviet) major generals disappeared, NKVD style. (Tedder represented SHAEF in Berlin, no American could be filmed. Cute, no?)
Rather than being outstaged, Ike never attended even his own ceremony! He was in the next room over. He didn’t enter the room until Jodl was hustled off to prison. Smith was the ranking American general.
%%%
During all of this Tokyo was obsessed. Seeing their Axis colleagues shipped off in irons AMPED UP their insistence on only “conditional surrender.”
It never ever entered their consciousness that their bargaining power was absolutely ZERO.
The American negotiators didn’t even consider the matter to be of import. What Leftists, Revisionists, and Monday morning quarterbacks don’t comprehend is that not for one second did any American politician figure that the Japanese were actually tossing away 20,000 lives per day of something so politically insignificant.
In the fullness of time, it’s now obvious that the Emperor should have been prosecuted as a war criminal. For reasons of real politic MacArthur whitewashed Hirohito’s massive, personal involvement.
With time, it’s now revealed that he was as big a war criminal as Adolf Hitler. He was totally behind the Tojo project — heart and soul. It couldn’t have worked any other way.
So, skipping over Hirohito was no small thing.
In my humble opinion the actual decision to skip past Hirohito was made by the MacArthur/ Truman occupation staffers.
[ There is this crazy idea that MacArthur ran the Japanese occupation. In fact, his staff was flush with Truman’s junior crew members — typically straight from liberal Ivy universities. Most of MacArthur’s brilliant ideas came from them, not him. As ever, Mac grabbed all of the credit. — You can ask Ike how that worked out when he was Mac’s chief of staff. ]
One last thing: The actual surrender document was never negotiated. The Americans (Truman) drafted the entire document and nowhere in it is there ANY provision protecting the Emperor — it’s abject surrender straight up and down.
The Truman administration actually never granted anything but absolute American (unitary) domination. This went so far as to telling Stalin to shove it!
Uncle Joe was NOT happy. He seized the few northern islands he could, abiding his time until he could co-launch the so-called Korean War. (Really the War of the Reds.)
Korean fodder
Soviet air power (all of the original jet pilots were Red Army)
ChiCom civil war — the final phase…
[ The infamous human wave attacks of the ChiComs were ENTIRELY purposed with the liquidation of the SOUTHERN Chinese Armies that had, until the last, been Nationalist troops. The Communist (northern( Armies actually never fought in Korea. !!! They stood back, up and behind the front: so that the frontal armies could not turn around and retreat. They were then liquidated under NATO guns — as instructed. This insane loss of blood was widely misunderstood by NATO officers.
MacArthur figured all this out. He (“privately”) contacted Taiwan with the intent of bringing up Nationalist army officers to work the mega-phones against such human wave attacks. Then, MacArthur figured that he could easily re-equip these fellows and turn them around (under American air power) and set them loose against Mao.
THIS ^^^^ is the real reason why Truman sacked MacArthur. Once the Yalu had been crossed, Truman would’ve been in a position where he’d have to back MacArthur’s foreign policy!!!
He blew is stack, of course.
All of this is still taboo.]