I feel like I'm qualified to answer this. We have an obligation to help, in my opinion, for a few reasons. The first reason being that too many Americans died fighting for Iraq's security for us to sit back and let it implode. Secondly, all that time and money will be going down the drain. Now, we messed up by leaving a country without adequate security and without competent security forces to handle such a threat--but that's only partly our fault. Yes, Obama and his team probably did not negoiate as hard as they should have for a new SOFA agreement; however, the blame is also on Maliki here. Why? He has essentially acted as a puppet of Iran after we announced the withdrawal. It is his own doing as to why we did not leave a residual force; Iran, being that he essentially owed them, did not want American troops left in Iraq. Being the stooge he is, he complied. Getting back on track here, we cannot let ISIS control this much territory. Much like other al-Qaeda groups (while ISIS is no longer, as of the time of this post, a branch of al-Qaeda, they are still pursuing AQ'S goals and ideology set forth by UBL), their focus is purely local right now. Like we've seen with other branches, they will eventually begin to target the west. While most resources are directed for local needs, some are diverted for attacking the far enemy. With ISIS controlling almost a third of Iraq, this does not bode well for the region nor for the West. It's essentially the same logic for France's intervention in Mali after AQIM took over a portion the size of Texas. We simply cannot let this dangerous of a terrorist organization to control this much ground--it provides ample amount of protection and opportunities to conduct training, to finance terrorist attacks, to plot them, etc. If we are to do something about this, however, it needs to be on conditions. Conditions that Maliki will make serious steps to improving rights for both Sunni's and Kurds. Without that, he is not getting direct military intervention. At least, if I were in charge he wouldn't. We should still offer him limited intelligence, logisitical and technological support, with the "full" package to be unlocked in the event he makes the aforementioned improvements. For once, I actually agree with Obama on a decision in foreign policy. Iraq needs to set forth a political plan of reintegrating Sunni's and Kurds into everyday Iraqi politics, without that he will be hard-pressed to find the support from us that he wants. http://thelineofsteel.weebly.com/the-line-of-steel/the-islamic-states-rampage-in-iraq My blog post on this.

Iraq is Obamas greatest accomplishment.

say hat you will about Saddam but at least he kept the Islamists in check

I don't think the average American wants anything to do with the Middle East. The backlash to intervention in Syria was proof enough.

WELL THANKS DUBYA THAT WHOLE IRAQ WAR ON TERROR THING SURE DID STABILIZE THE REGION

Send Iron Man

Why do users constantly post these threads? We already know how bad things are In that region, no need to continually make threads about it.

We supposedly left Iraq under control and we supposedly trained their police and military. I guess we learned something today about suppositions.

Let Iran handle this one. Unless the US has the balls to ignore basic civil rights an squash any oppression.... then the US will never have victory. It’s sad, but the only other way is to educate... eliminating these pitiful religious differences.... but the population does';t want to be educated... certainly not by the west.

The ISIS are crazy. Mind as well nuke it. Even Al-Qaeda think their -blam!-ing ridicolous. Wipe them out, do everyone a favor

[i] [/i]

I seriously don't know why Obama thought the Iraqi military was competent at all. [quote]>Four of Iraq’s 14 army divisions virtually abandoned their posts, stripped off their uniforms and fled when confronted in cities such as Mosul and Tikrit >From January through May, six helicopters were shot down and 60 were damaged in battle, an administration official said. >In the same period, 28 M-1 tanks were damaged and five tanks sustained full armor penetration by antitank guided missiles. ISIS, the administration official added, appears to have acquired Russian antitank weapons in Syria. [/quote] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/world/middleeast/american-intelligence-officials-said-iraqi-military-had-been-in-decline.html?_r=0

We probably are already helping, the media just doesn't care about it........or doesn't know about it.

Rule of thumb here. If the government of the country specifically asks for help, then you jump in. And if the government is too -blam!-ed not to call for aid, then the normal civilians should do the only thing they can do. Mass exodus.

Let Britain take care of it. They get mad when America steps up before they do. Might as well let little brother start getting some credit.