The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Bombing Won't Save Iraq
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The panic that engulfed this capital after the fall of Mosul, when it appeared that the Islamist fanatics of ISIS would overrun Baghdad, has passed.
And the second thoughts have begun.

“U.S. Sees Risk in Iraqi Airstrikes,” ran the June 19 headline in the Washington Post, “Military Warns of Dangerous Complications.”

This is welcome news. For if it is an unwritten rule of republics not to commit to war unless the nation is united, America has never been less prepared for a Mideast war.

Our commander in chief is a reluctant warrior who wants his legacy to be ending our two longest wars. And just as Obama does not want to go back into Iraq, neither does the U.S. military.

The American people want no new war, and Congress does not want to be forced to vote on such a war.

Our foreign policy elites are split half a dozen ways — on whether to bomb or not to bomb, on who our real enemies are in Syria and Iraq, on whose support we should and should not accept, on what our strategic goals are, and what are the prospects for success.

Consider the bombing option.

Undoubtedly, U.S. air power could blunt an attack on Baghdad. But air power cannot retake Mosul or the Sunni Triangle that Baghdad has lost, or Kirkuk or Kurdistan. That will take boots on the ground and casualties.

And nobody thinks these should be American boots or American casualties. And why should we fight to hold Iraq together? Is that a vital interest to which we should commit American lives in perpetuity?

When did it become so?

No. Bombing cannot put Iraq together again, but it may tear Iraq further apart.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has succeeded in northern Iraq because it has allied with the same militias, Baathists and tribal leaders who worked with Gen. David Petraeus in the Anbar Awakening.

And if we use air power in Sunni provinces that have seceded from Baghdad, we will be killing people who were our partners and are not our enemies. Photos of dead Sunnis, from U.S. air, drone, and missile strikes, could inflame the Sunni world.

Upon one thing Americans do agree: ISIS and al-Qaida are our enemies. But are bombing ISIS and killing Sunnis the way to destroy ISIS? Or does bombing martyrize and heroize ISIS for the Sunni young?

And if destroying ISIS is a strategic imperative, why have we not demanded that the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia cease funneling arms and aid to ISIS in Syria? Why have we not told the Turks to stop permitting jihadists to cross their border into Syria?

Why are we aiding and arming the Free Syrian Army to bring down Bashar Assad, when Assad’s army is the only fighting force standing between ISIS and the conquest of Syria?

If ISIS is our mortal enemy, why have we not persuaded the Turks to seal their border and send their NATO-equipped army into Syria to annihilate ISIS?

Turkey’s Kemal Ataturk ended the old caliphate and put the caliph on the Orient Express to Europe. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan could be the man who strangled the new caliphate in its crib.

U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq today add up to incoherence.

Iran is consistent. She wants to see the Shia regimes survive in Damascus and Syria, and has put blood and treasure on the line.

The Saudis and Gulf Arabs are consistent, while playing a dangerous game. Seeing the Shia regimes in Damascus and Baghdad as alien and hostile, they are helping extremists to overthrow them.

Only the Americans seem conflicted and confused.

In Iraq we are on the side of the Shia regime fighting ISIS. In Syria we are de facto allies of ISIS fighting to overthrow the Shia regime.

“Take away this pudding,” said Churchill, “it has no theme.”

Washington believes that the fall of Baghdad would be a strategic defeat and disaster. Have we considered what the fall of Damascus would mean? Who rises if Bashar Assad falls?

Who goes to the wall if the al-Nusra Front and ISIS prevail in Syria? Would Americans be welcome in that new Syria?

If we help bring down Assad’s regime and a radical Sunni regime takes its place, like the terrorist-welcoming Taliban of yesterday, would we then have to go in on the ground to oust it?

This is not an academic question. The use of U.S. air power in Iraq could cause ISIS to turn back to its primary target — Damascus.

And there are reports that part of that stockpile of U.S. arms and munitions ISIS captured in Mosul is already being moved across the border into Syria for a fight to the finish there, rather than in Iraq.

This new civil-sectarian-secessionist war in Syria and Iraq looks to last for years. How have we suffered by staying out of it?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2014

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iraq, ISIS 
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. joe says:

    “Upon one thing Americans do agree: ISIS and al-Qaida are our enemies.”

    Oh? Is the president not American? Are we not supporting ISIS, et. al. in Syria? Are they not enemies of the Greater Satan Iran and hence our friends? The endless meddling of our mercantile leaders has wasted trillions of our dollars and millions of our lives with the single result that we do not know who to kill next. I call that a usually great job of the feds.

  2. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    It’s Pat Buchanan, he wouldn’t mention we’re arming those groups via Saudia Arabia either; or many hundreds of other things. That the flattening of Iraq laid the groundwork for centuries old tribal warfare to break out after removing the Strongman Saddam, who we also funded, etc., etc., etc. I’m such “conservative” donors like Lockhead are up for some aerial war though.

  3. fnn says:

    “Upon one thing Americans do agree: ISIS and al-Qaida are our enemies.”

    Rank-and-file Americans believe that, but it’s the Israelis who are calling the shots. Their main enemies are Iran and its sole ally of Syria. And you can find plenty of evidence that Israel and Saudi are de facto allies. It’d kind of like the Hitler-Stalin pact.

    Here’s Syria on Saudi:

    Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal has called for the international community’s urgent intervention in Syria to end the suffering of the rising number of Syrians who are either internally displaced or have taken refuge outside the border.
    Personally, I think the international community should attack Saudi based on the accusations he spews against Syria. Youtube is littered with torture of women, Ethiopians, maids, garbage collectors, animals etc by Saudis. You name it, Saudi tortures it. Its enough the international community should be sick to death over. But you dont hear any condemnation from the international community as Saudi has that almighty petro dollar to buy silence from these communities. Its easy to turn a blind eye to real human suffering when you are paid the big bucks to do so. Oh ya, in Saudi, being gay will get your head chopped off!

  4. fnn says:

    I can’t figure out what Bill Morrison is railing about. Doesn’t he know that PJB was one of the strongest voices against BOTH Iraq wars?

  5. KA says:

    What makes you think Saudi Arab is not in the line of the sight? After Iran ,it would face the wrath of the power point presenters in the Pentagon meetings organized by Perle and his protege through the Defense Policy Board
    That time it provoked the Saudi so much that the presentation had to be officially disclaimed by Bush administration with caveat in 2002.

  6. KA says:

    Saudi royals are so freaking stupid they believe Israel

  7. KA says:

    Egypt is the prize. Saudi and Iraq are the pivots. That’s what the Zionist dreamt of and passed the nightmares to the Pentagon as utopia

  8. KA says:

    Balkanization of Arab land will open up opportunities for Israel . In the past , Balkanized European kingdoms in perpetual fights with each other rescued the good life of the diaora Jews as noted by economist Friedman -

    The splintered groups of different fiefdoms allowed the diaspora to monopolize international business and exert control on the petty corrupt kings or queens.
    Israel will be facing economic problem as the west slowly succumbs to the pitfalls of the immigration, outsourcing,corruption,lack of duration and manufacturing. But it will spread its tentacles among Arabs chieftains and wil work as intermediaries between rising powers like China and India.

  9. simonsays says:

    Try Algeria to Iraq. The caliph will be Arabia. Egypt-cairo will be the capital.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV