Time to Move On to Plan B...

Fallout From Attack Reflects Iraq’s Sectarian Divide
By BEN HUBBARD

After dozens were killed at a mosque, Sunni leaders said they were pulling out of negotiations to create a new Iraqi government, which is considered vital to stopping ISIS.

--------------
WHY should Americans care, if the Sunnis are "out" of any talks of rebuilding a unified Iraqi government following the borders of the 2003 pre-American invasion of Iraq?

BECAUSE our whole American strategy of defeating the Islamic State from afar without sending in our troops to Syria or Iraq again, hinges on there being a unified Iraqi government to hold off the Islamic State fighters.

Iraqis Must Rise above their Differences to Rout Terrorists
By U.S. Vice President Joe Biden

In recent months, the terrorist group known within the U.S. government as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has seized significant territory inside Iraq, exploiting sectarian divisions and political mistrust that sapped the strength of Iraqi forces. ISIL seeks to rip Iraq apart in its quest to establish a caliphate. But Iraq’s communities have started to unite in pushing back.

Since more than 13 million Iraqis cast their ballots in April despite threats from ISIL to kill anyone who voted, Iraqis have convened a new parliament, selected a speaker and president and designated a new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, to form a new government.

These steps are meaningful because they show that Iraqis have begun to understand that they must rise above their differences. And that, when they do, they can succeed — not only in uniting the country but in defeating ISIL.
...
But even if there were no ISIL, Iraq’s survival would still depend on the ability of Iraqis to set aside their differences and unite in a common effort.

Air support alone will not defeat the IS forces, as we've looked on and learned from the Gaza and Afghanistan fights. Smart fighters simply go underground and wait it out. War of attrition.

We should also get realistic quickly and understand that no amount of hoping is going to bring the change necessary for the Iraqi people (loosely defined) to protect their nation's borders (loosely defined) from a unified and disciplined and deadly fighting force that the Islamic State has already assembled.  They're mighty killers, not nation builders.

An American financed and propped-up government, protected by an army that runs -- probably wisely to save their lives -- from the fight, is nothing to bank on in beating back ISIS.

After the ongoing round of air attacks in which America has prematurely declared war on the Islamic State troops in Iraq, it appears we would have to invade Syria as well -- if only Syrian air space, which we might already be doing? -- to continue the aerial bombardment. Hence, all the talk lately of sovereign borders being essentially meaningless, that the United States offensive attack is “not going to be restricted by borders”, advanced by the creative writer turned senior foreign policy expert currently speaking on behalf of the Obama administration as the president rests up good on Martha's Vineyard.

Bet our president wishes he could go underground right about now, and wait this conflict out... I'm sure we've got a very nice bunker prepared, if any other country decided to come in here and tried to take out our president. (Not that I forsee that happening any time soon, but one must consider all possibilities in planning before taking premature actions that oblige one to commit further...)
------------------
WORTH RE-READING:
I would make this required reading for all the purple-fingered believers who thought gifting democracy to a nation at gunpoint would be such an easy slog.  Have they learned yet?  Doubtful, but we can still call them out...

Who lost Iraq? The Iraqis did, with an assist from George W. Bush
By Fareed Zakaria, Opinion writer June 12 

It is becoming increasingly likely that Iraq has reached a turning point. The forces hostile to the government have grown stronger, better equipped and more organized. And having now secured arms, ammunition and hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from their takeover of Mosul — Iraq’s second-largest city — they will build on these strengths. Inevitably, in Washington, the question has surfaced: Who lost Iraq?
...
Having invaded Iraq with a small force — what the expert Tom Ricks called “the worst war plan in American history” — the administration needed to find local allies. It quickly decided to destroy Iraq’s Sunni ruling establishment and empower the hard-line Shiite religious parties that had opposed Saddam Hussein. This meant that a structure of Sunni power that had been in the area for centuries collapsed. These moves — to disband the army, dismantle the bureaucracy and purge Sunnis in general — might have been more consequential than the invasion itself.
The turmoil in the Middle East is often called a sectarian war. But really it is better described as “the Sunni revolt.”

Across the region, from Iraq to Syria, one sees armed Sunni gangs that have decided to take on the non-Sunni forces that, in their view, oppress them. The Bush administration often justified its actions by pointing out that the Shiites are the majority in Iraq and so they had to rule. But the truth is that the borders of these lands are porous, and while the Shiites are numerous in Iraq — Maliki’s party actually won a plurality, not a majority — they are a tiny minority in the Middle East as a whole. It is outside support — from places as varied as Saudi Arabia and Turkey — that sustains the Sunni revolt.
...
Washington is debating whether airstrikes or training forces would be more effective, but its real problem is much larger and is a decade in the making. In Iraq, it is defending the indefensible.