After U.S. Sanctions & Wars Tore Iraq Apart, Can American-Led Strikes Be Expected to Save It?

[CHIMO]

SINAN ANTOON: I really don’t know, and I don’t think it matters right now. I mean, the problem is now we’re dealing with the consequences not just of Maliki’s politics—of course, primarily his politics—but everything that has been happening for the last eight years and never really having a—really, a vision or a strategy.

And I just want to point out that it’s important to remember the timing of the U.S. intervention. You know, ISIS took over Mosul and took over all of these villages, and it’s only when ISIS was close to Erbil, where there is a CIA office and where there are corporate oil interests, that then the United States moved much faster. So, again, please, we always have to repeat that. This has nothing to do with humanitarian issues. Nothing at all. I mean, we, I think, citizens, have to learn after all these years, and especially the last 10 years, that humanitarian issues are not—are not the reason why there is any intervention. We always have to look at geopolitics, and maybe, of course, dealing with some opposition or rising voices of criticism in the metropolis.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/2/after_us_sanctions_wars_tore_iraq

[3rdwaydem]

1. Air strikes, over time, can significantly degrade ISIS capability HOWEVER,

unless the Iraqi Army is willing to fight ISIS on the ground, air strikes will not be enough.

[arthritisR_US]

2. They broke it they own it. Part of the fix will

require friends helping out of which we are. It's a shitty situation but if we can help our friends we should, otherwise our friendship is rather shallow.