“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”

[kentuck]

A quote from Lord Palmerston, an English statesman.
===============

Countries seldom act for purely moral or humanitarian reasons, although that may be a corollary explanation by the leaders of a country. The masses are usually more apt to support military action for moral or humanitarian purposes than for natural resources or strategic advantage.

And: http://www.iraqinews.com/baghdad-politics/washington-warns-us-corporations-from-buying-kurdistan-crude-oil/

And: http://basnews.com/en/News/Details/Kurdish-oil-reserves-on-the-increase/9085

There is usually more going on behind the scenes than what is reported by government news sources.

In regards to Mosul and Erbil, it is the oil-rich area of Kurdistan. Kurdistan has been the most reliable ally of the US for the last dozen years. Strategically, it would also be a geographic counter to Iran if they take over Baghdad and that part of what was once known as "Iraq". That would isolate ISIS in the western provinces, with their most likely targets for takeover in the country of Syria.

In my opinion, we are watching the breakup of the country of Iraq.

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I'll have to look for it

But I recall Biden making this suggestion as a proactive solution in 2006 - it was before the 2008 election. It's out there somewhere. That said - his influence? Wouldn't be surprised if this was the plan.

Pssst - De Gaulle modernized it - France has no friends, only interests.

[former9thward]

4. Biden was wrong then.

It is imperialist great power thinking. Most of the trouble in the Middle East has come from Western powers drawing lines, including in Iraq, which was drawn up after WW I by the British and French to serve their interests. The U.S. should not make the same mistake itself. It is not for us to draw lines. It is up to the peoples of the region to settle it.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. Oh I would agree

It is up to them - and if it is up to them -

Then let's drop the rope.

Because the entire middle east is dragging us.

We left Vietnam.

We can do the same there.

[malthaussen]

2. Even interests can change, though.

But when they do, it may well still happen that policy is made based on the old interests, as a sort of reflex.

-- Mal

[kentuck]

3. Very true...

Not that long ago, we were allied with Saddam Hussein against Iran.

[The2ndWheel]

6. It wasn't really a country anyway, as they say

The only way borders make sense is if the people that are directly tied to them in the area are able to figure them out themselves. That has usually meant war of some sort. You can't just draw lines on a map.

The US, countries in Europe, Asia, these places were able to figure out the borders themselves long before a UN or a world police ever existed. They all got to do in their day what ISIS is trying to do now.

The Middle East doesn't work because it hasn't gotten to figure itself out for however many decades now. It's been the pawns on the chessboard during that time. As long as Saddam was there, whatever Iraq is was stable to some degree. You take him out, now all the pieces are more free to move around and cause trouble.