Question 1: Is there any real danger that Bagdhad will fall? That seems to be the focus of a lot of the coverage, but there is no evidence that ISIS has any real support outside the Sunni community and that, once it moves into more Shia-dominated areas, it will be as effective.
Question 2: If Baghdad falls, should the United States re-enter the country? The answer is no. As Bob Dreyfus points out at The Nation, the Iraqis were not sorry to see us leave in 2011, even as we tried to negotiate to keep a small contingent of troops in Iraq:
the Obama administration tried its best to work out a plan for a long-term US-Iraqi security agreement, such as the one it’s implementing in godforsaken Afghanistan now. But those negotiations failed. Ostensibly, they failed because of certain sticking points, such as the demand from the United States that Iraq provide legal immunity to US troops, which Iraqis felt was a violation of their national sovereignty. But the real reason that the talks stalled, and then collapsed, was because the Iraqis didn’t want the United States to stay. Not only did many Sunnis, who might have favored the United States as a stabilizing presence, say that America was an occupying power, but the government installed by George W. Bush and Co., heavily weighted toward extremist, sectarian Shiites with close ties to Iran, didn’t want the United States to stay either. And that’s partly because Iran, which has enormous influence in Baghdad—where its ambassadors are routinely drawn from the ranks of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—didn’t want any US role in Iraq, and Tehran made its wishes clear to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in no uncertain terms. So, short of toppling Maliki, the United States was out.
Which brings us to:
Question 3: Is this U.S. problem? No. This is a national — i.e., Iraqi — problem and a regional problem, meaning the regional powers need to be brought to the table (see Dreyfus piece). Who are these regional powers? Well, this is where things get a little uncomfortable, because the Shia majority in Iraq is closely allied with Iran — at least according to the press reports. This means that the Iranians — and the Saudi Arabians on the Sunni side and maybe the Turks, as well — will have to be included in any efforts to attempt the sectarian war — which is what we appear to be dealing with here.
Question 4: What should the United States do? Not much, because there is not much we can do. Can we send in the fighter planes? Sure, but who exactly would we be supporting — a corrupt government that has been consolidating power and looking to exclude Sunnis? The Kurds? What exactly would the impact of American air power be on the fighting on the ground and, just as importantly, the way we are viewed by the so-called Arab street?
Question 5: But Maliki is asking us for help. Doesn’t that count for something? He is asking for it, but does not have the support of his parliament, thanks to a boycott on the part of Kurds and Sunnis, as the Times reports. Heeding his request will appear to the Sunni minority — and possibly to the Kurds — as though we are taking sides in the civil war because the air power will be concentrated on Sunni areas, which brings us back to the answer to question 4.
I pose this as a series of questions because I am obviously not an expert on foreign policy. These are just the questions that come to mind as the crisis ramps up and my own very brief answers. There are other questions still to be asked, but I can’t see how American involvement in what is happening today in Iraq is either in our interests or in the best interests of the Iraqis.
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 
The Iraq war should have never happened, it was built on lies, fabrications and deception. But the jingoistic and chauvinistic propaganda machine was set in full motion and anybody who opposed the war or even raised questions about the war was smeared, demonized and swift boated. Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame were nearly destroyed by retribution and payback from the Bush White house. We had to support the troops, except when they came home physically and mentally maimed for life. How many Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are now homeless, have committed suicide or murders? The cost of these two wars is mind boggling and yet so many Americans remain clueless. The saddest and most tragic part is that we learned nothing from the Vietnam debacle. We still have some people who actually contend that we should have stayed longer in Vietnam, we should have finished the job! Insane, insane. The millionaire (maybe billionaire?) Peter Kann actually wrote such an op ed in the Wall Street journal in 2005. How can someone so smart be so damn stupid about Vietnam? He was a combat journalist in Vietnam, he must have seen all the carnage and yet in 2005 this guy still contended that the war was winnable and we should have finished the job?!? Is he saying that we should have killed off another million Vietnamese and had another 58,000 US troops brought home in body bags? Sorry, I can no longer find the link to that WSJ opinion piece.
Found a link to the 2005 Peter Kann op ed in favor of war in Vietnam and Iraq: http://www.americans-working-together.com/id55.html Here are some excerpts from that pathetic pro war article: The differences include the fact that America pursued the struggle in Vietnam for more than a decade against a regular North Vietnamese army backed by the Soviet Union and China, and lost more than 58,000 American soldiers, many of them draftees, before we decided to toss in the towel. By comparison, America, now the world's sole superpower, has been fighting a collection of terrorists in Iraq for less than two years and has lost fewer than 2,000 troops–and these from a fully professional and volunteer military. Nevertheless, significant elements of our elite are already beginning to sound retreat, even as Iraq takes serious steps toward democracy. Such differences, one might argue, are a sad commentary on the softening sinews of our society. [snip]At the very least, we need to buy time. Alternatively, to lose heart and retreat–after less than two years and with fewer than 2,000 casualties–almost surely means losing not just the battle but also the war, a far worse outcome than those who cite Vietnam similarities can seem to comprehend.What a brilliant jackass, especially in light of events almost 9 years after that pro war screed of Peter Kann.