Thursday, June 12, 2014

NYT Cut and Paste: As Iraq falls back, our fight here is over control of the narrative

As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials.

But Iraq’s appeals for a military response have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was over when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011. (read more)

***

I used to be a polemicist. I was an editorial cartoonist, and wrote what I called “artist’s statements” to accompany my cartoons each week, which over the two terms of the George W. Bush administration lengthened and sharpened from rants into something more like essays. I became practiced at using language as a weapon. My role models were hilarious, elegant and brutal humorists from Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken through Hunter S. Thompson and Matt Taibbi, who raised American invective to an art form. This is a fine and honorable tradition when practiced with a certain amour-propre and panache, but in the last couple of decades it’s become our dominant mode of public discourse, degraded by hacks and amateurs who ape its cruelty but are rhetorically illiterate and tone-deaf to humor. They’re just parroting talking points with profanity.

I’m no longer an active combatant in that fight. As the grim, endless decade of the War on Terror dragged on I began to get a bad aesthetic conscience about my screeds, and grew concerned that I might be doing cirrhotic damage to what let’s call, for old times’ sake, my soul. I found a second career as an essayist, and made a conscientious effort to be more intellectually honest, fair-minded and empathetic, to get out there and try to help instead of just cheerfully jeering from the bleachers. (read more)

134 comments:

chickelit said...

Please explain more about Tim Kreider. That essay leaves way too much to my imagination, and I tend to fill in the blanks with negatives. He spent the Bush years producing invective against whom, exactly? And his serial "loss of friends" was about whom? People he'd romantically dumped or been dumped by? Self-inflicted AIDs victims? Who? who? who? And do they matter?

My neighbor and a dear friend did two tours on the ground in Iraq. He lost a lot of friends and acquaintances. His lasting question about Iraq is "Who won?"

POTUS Obama has dug himself an even deeper negative legacy among vets by cheering and steering the backsliding of Iraq into chaos and terror.

Michael Haz said...

It is impossible the describe the anger and fury I am experiencing about the situation presently in Iraq. Impossible.

Four thousand four hundred thirty two American lives were lost in Iraq. That's 4,432 lives of young American men and women. 4,432 lives. 4,432 sons, husbands, daughters and wives. The cost was so that Saddam could be removed from power, al-quaeda removed, a form of electoral democracy put in place for the Iraqi citizens, and a level of peace brought to that country.

And it worked, as well as things can work in the middle east. There were elections. There was a tentative peace. There was normal commerce. Schools were built, businesses opened. Life of Iraqis had a sense of normalcy.

When Obama was sworn in in 2008 the surge had been completed. The enemy had been mostly routed. The US was helping Iraq train its own defense forces, its own police forces, its own governmental structure, its own banking system.

Then Obama arbitrarily decided to remove all American forces form Iraq, and made that date public. And it was too soon for the job to be finished. But Obama said the REAL war was in Afghanistan, and that's where US forces would go.

And now we have this horrific scene. Al-quaeda has reformed as ISIS, a merger of the worst parts of Syrian and Iranian jihadi warriors. They have run hundreds of thousands or peaceable Iraqis out of their cities, beheaded thousands, looted the banking system of a half-billion dollars, and acquired American weapons and vehicles.

The weapons this administration left behind are in the hands of the ISIS forces. The guns, the humvees, everything else. The weapons the Obama administration gave Syria are now being used against Iraq. That includes thousands of RPVs, hellfire and stinger missiles, bombs, 50 caliber guns, tanks, etc.

And now the administration wants to give Iraq more F-16 jets. MORE??? WTF did we give that any in the first place?? Those jets will wind up in the hands or Iran, or China or Russia. They will be used against us. They will be used against Israel.

The anger is getting worse. I cannot understand this event. Why would the US government do this to the Iraqi people? It seems that the intent is to aid the worst actors in the mid east. Doesn't it seem like that to you? The Obama administration cannot be this inept; this has to be deliberate.

And those now-wasted 4,432 lives....God help us, this is an unspeakable tragedy.

And the 67,752 injured....

chickelit said...

I feel anger too, Michael -- and also some for the dimwitted who thought that by electing Obama in 2008, he and his party would somehow "own" US defense policy. Well suppose they don't? Suppose they keep on denying harsh realities and keep endlessly reposing themselves in some class and race power struggle?

chickelit said...

And I'm out of here for a while. I got things to work on.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

He spent the Bush years producing invective against whom, exactly?

Against Bush and Iraq... which after a while became synonymous.

Bush is Iraq and Iraq is Bush... you see?

The victorious narrative personalized Iraq. Meaning, once Bush was gone and our soldiers left Iraq it would be as if it never happened.

It's more of that magical thinking this administration is known for.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Remember how part of the Obama narrative covering the Bergdahl swap is that "we leave no man behind"... right?

By abandoning Iraq prematurely, and now having it fall as a result... aren't we in effect leaving behind, as it were, all the men who died fighting there?

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

In order for us to succeed in Iraq, the next election here could not be made part of the equation for successes.

Once that connection was successfully made by president "we won" Obama, the fall of Iraq was almost guaranteed then and there.

Meade said...

"I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate commenters alike, are lashing out because they’ve been hurt — their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or they feel personally wounded or threatened. Writing may ultimately be less an offensive weapon, like the proverbial rapier, than a shield."

Good find, El Lembo

Unknown said...

Anger, indeed. Excellent points, Haz.

The left are not humanitarian. Remember, to the left, this was an illegal war for oil. Started by a cowboy in search of bogus WMDs. Even though democrats in all levels of power are on tape insisting that the WMD were there. Hillary, John Kerry etc...

(still waiting for that oil)

Obama didn't lose Iraq - he gave it away.

edutcher said...

Choom made his first big splash with "I was against it fi-irst. I was against it fi-irst.".

He jumped right on the Pelosi "A-stan is the REAL War on Terror" bandwagon fast. Now, he's abandoning that, too.

Dubya won Iraq. He had done well in A-stan. We couldn't have that.

The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.

In case someone wonders whose side Choom's on.

edutcher said...

PPS April, he threw it away.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

And btw, if you expect this president to be held responsible for leaving Iraq early... what do they say? don't hold your breath?

It will be Bush's fault now more than ever.

I'm just predicting the pattern of thought that has permeated and held sway ever since Obama became president.

His polls may even dip lower, but, the narrative, the only thing they care about, will not reflect that.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but, that's what my gut tells me.

KCFleming said...

I'm sure Hillary will be all over the Iraq situation, just hand her the reins.

Booooosh!

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

US involvement in World War II lasted three and a half years in two theaters of war against the two strongest militaries of the age.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had nearly six years for a war against a third world country. If that wasn't enough time for them to sort out the problem then maybe, just maybe, there was something wrong with their strategy.

Meade said...

I hold Bush responsible for incompetently prosecuting the war in Iraq. He had 8 years. He failed to win.

Meade said...

"I'm sure Hillary will be all over the Iraq situation, just hand her the reins."

She will be one of our greatest war presidents.

ndspinelli said...

I know a guy who helped take Mosul. He had comrades die. Al Qaeda has more territory and strength than they did on 9/11. We are going to pay dearly for this incompetence.

ndspinelli said...

Everyone, you're doing a great job this morning!

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

The only thing I can do now is quote them...

Joe Biden: Iraq one of Obama's 'greatest achievements ... - LA Now

Feb 11, 2010 - Thank goodness, Vice President Joe Biden went on CNN to chat with Larry King Wednesday night. So many think things are not going so well ...


Gibbs defends Biden claim that Iraq is a great Obama Achievement ...

Feb 12, 2010 - Democrat vice president Joe Biden with Larry King on CNN 2-10-10 ... that the Iraq war was one of the young Obama administration "greatest achievements ...

Make their priority, their narrative, their lies, difficult.

Meade said...

As I said...

Rabel said...

"US involvement in World War II lasted three and a half years in two theaters of war against the two strongest militaries of the age.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had nearly six years for a war against a third world country. If that wasn't enough time for them to sort out the problem then maybe, just maybe, there was something wrong with their strategy."

Putting these two statements together, I take it that you're saying that Bush should have firebombed the major Iraqi cities and dropped a nuke on Tehran?

Meade said...

"dropped a nuke on Tehran? "

Hillary would have.

ricpic said...

This is not only about Iraq. Losing to Islam has very real consequences...for America! Case you've been blinding yourself to the obvious, Obama sides with Islam. Obama must be removed from office by any means necessary NOW.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

ricpic said...
This is not only about Iraq. Losing to Islam has very real consequences...for America! Case you've been blinding yourself to the obvious, Obama sides with Islam.


This analysis ignores the obvious point that the war is a civil war between two competing factions of Islam. Whose side are we on?

Meade said...

I blame all the Republicans, so-called "conservatives", and independents who didn't do what I did in 2008 — stop the freshman senator for Illinois, weak on defense, by voting in the Democratic primary election for Hillary, leaving us with only 2 horrible choices: weak-on-defense Obama and weak-in-the-head McCain.

Thanks, idiots.

Meade said...

"Whose side are we on?"

Whichever side is least interested in destroying us and Israel.

AllenS said...

I started to read the article, and soon became bored with Tim Kreider.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Rabel said...
Putting these two statements together, I take it that you're saying that Bush should have firebombed the major Iraqi cities and dropped a nuke on Tehran?


If that is what it would have taken to 'win' the war then we get back to strategy. Why start a war where we lack the moral force to win and whose sole effect will be to escalate an ongoing low grade civil war?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I went to one of Tim Kreider's websites and saw that he got a plug from Judd Apatow, and didn't know who that was, so I went to wikipedia and learned that Mr. Apatow is worth 90 million dollars so you'd think he could afford to buy himself a better name.

Although, in all fairness, the old one seems to be doing him just fine.

Meade said...

Lem, if you are going to delete my response to ricpic's idiotic "Obama must be removed from office by any means necessary NOW.", you should at least also delete ricpic's idiocy. Otherwise, it will appear that you agree with him and everyone knows "by any means necessary" includes assassination.

Tank said...

Iraq: a good place not to go in the first place.

Chip S. said...

For the US casualties I blame Colin Powell and his stupid "Pottery Barn" rule.

We have the means to eliminate any gov't that fucks w. us, in a matter of weeks. We don't have the means to create Jeffersonian democracies in shitholes.

So the sensible policy is to keep dropping in to remove bad gov'ts until the bad guys figure out it makes no sense to keep trying to fuck w. us.

People should've known Powell was full of shit right away. There's actually very little pottery in a Pottery Barn.

For fucking up the end game, of course, there's only one person to blame--the dipshit Colin Powell endorsed in 2008 and 2012.

Meade said...

"So the sensible policy is to keep dropping in to remove bad gov'ts until the bad guys figure out it makes no sense to keep trying to fuck w. us."

You know who finally learned that lesson and acted on it?

President Clinton.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

As Pogo said a long time ago, "Everybody disappoints us, eventually."

Michael Haz said...

"So let's tote up the results in the Middle East so far on the Obama/Hillary/Kerry watch:

Iraq War: turned from victory into defeat.
Afghanistan: turned from victory into defeat.
Egypt: relatively stable U.S. friendly dictatorship replaced with chaos.
Libya: relatively cowed nutty dictatorship replaced with chaos (and the death of a U.S. ambassador)
Syria: nasty dictator previously supported only by Iran now supported by Iran and Russia.
Iran: closer to nuclear weapons.

Quite a record."

Shouting Thomas said...

Slowly, the war is moving toward U.S. soil.

Our Diversity ideology has made it impossible for us to even assert that we have enemies, or that we believe our values to be better than those of our enemies and, thus, worth, fighting for.

The historical cure for this plunge into decadence is war on one's own soil.

The first attack already happened. 9/11. And, we still cannot accept the fact that real enemies with evil intent exist.

Shouting Thomas said...

Our southern border is wide open to the enemy.

Our president has openly and lawlessly opened the door.

We're in deep trouble.

edutcher said...

Lem said...

And btw, if you expect this president to be held responsible for leaving Iraq early... what do they say? don't hold your breath?

It will be Bush's fault now more than ever.

I'm just predicting the pattern of thought that has permeated and held sway ever since Obama became president.

His polls may even dip lower, but, the narrative, the only thing they care about, will not reflect that.


But the facts are on our side.

And, like Benghazi, the facts have a way of coming back to bite those that ignore them.

PS When the Lefties talk about social justice, that's what happens when you ignore the facts.

US involvement in World War II lasted three and a half years in two theaters of war against the two strongest militaries of the age.

Ah, yes, but they didn't have the Leftists in the US giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Not after Barabarossa.

Putting these two statements together, I take it that you're saying that Bush should have firebombed the major Iraqi cities and dropped a nuke on Tehran?

If that is what it would have taken to 'win' the war then we get back to strategy. Why start a war where we lack the moral force to win and whose sole effect will be to escalate an ongoing low grade civil war?


Ah, but he was winning, but people like the Troll Whose Nom de Net Must Not be Mocked couldn't have that, could they?

PS Did someone say we'd be better off with Hillary?

Shouting Thomas said...

And, here at home, the Diversity and anti-war zealots are against all efforts to harvest our own stores of coal, natural gas and oil.

We are so corrupt and decadent that we insist on exporting the problems of pollution to other places so that we can congratulate ourselves on our moral perfection.

Chip S. said...

Powerline: Close aides to President Obama are telling confidantes that Obama has checked out and is no longer interested in being president.

XRay said...

Sorry, but for some of us this is just Vietnam deja vu all over again. And it is the same players pulling the same ol' shit.

Meade said...

"Obama/Hillary/Kerry watch"

True – Hillary never should have taken the SoS job.

"Iraq War: turned from victory into defeat."

What "victory"?

"Afghanistan: turned from victory into defeat."

What "victory"?

"Egypt: relatively stable U.S. friendly dictatorship replaced with chaos."

Relatively stable dictatorship. I'll bet you take a lot of pride in your German ethnicity, don't you? Racial pride?

"Libya: relatively cowed nutty dictatorship replaced with chaos (and the death of a U.S. ambassador)"

Replaced? with chaos. Oh, I see — more dictatorphilia.

"Syria: nasty dictator previously supported only by Iran now supported by Iran and Russia."

You want boots on the Syrian ground, gunner?

"Iran: closer to nuclear weapons."

President Hillary would already have taken care of them but, no, you had to have John McCain, war hero.

Meade said...

"And it is the same players pulling the same ol' shit."

Who? Wha? LBJ? Thomas Eagleton?

Meade said...

"PS Did someone say we'd be better off with Hillary?"

Absolutely.

Unknown said...

Imaginary history trumps the reality that Hillary was Secretary of State and she was a failure at her post.
4 dead including an ambassador and a burned out embassy? No big deal, folks. What’s a little lie and scapegoat about a “Video” between media and pals? Let it go.
Never happened.
6 billion dollars vanished during Hillary’s stint as head of SoS department. Any real life consequences? Nah – Imaginary hype, + petulance = living history.

Sydney said...

Recommend deletion of 11:57AM comment

edutcher said...

Um, dare I ask what qualified the Hildabeast to be POTUS in '08 other than that the Lefties wanted it?

Chip S. said...

Powerline: Close aides to President Obama are telling confidantes that Obama has checked out and is no longer interested in being president.

Taking his ball and going home?

Then let him resign.

We'll have Joe declared non compos mentis and install Boehner's replacement as POTUS.

XRay said...

Sorry, but for some of us this is just Vietnam deja vu all over again. And it is the same players pulling the same ol' shit.

Almost 40 years to the day.

Meade said...

Recommend deletion of 1:00 PM comment.

Michael Haz said...

December 14, 2011. In a speech delivered at Ft Bragg Obama declares victory in Iraq.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlq9eItoAlg&autoplay=1

No. He turned tail and ran.

Chip S. said...

"Al Qaeda is on the run." true

Unfortunately they're running to Baghdad.

Meade said...

"Unfortunately they're running to Baghdad."

Maybe it's the Flypaper Strategy Redux.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2904

ricpic said...

Slowly, the war is moving toward U.S. soil.

Only the willfully blind choose not not to see this.

And the pace just picked up.

And Obama WANTS victory for Islam over America.

The soft-headed fool Meade and the cell leader ARM believe he is merely weak. Even those two schmegeggies should understand that there is such a thing as CRIMINAL weakness. For which there are removal mechanisms. Why must the CRIMINALLY weak Obama be removed from office? Because a CRIMINALLY weak president INVITES catastrophe for the country.

Chip S. said...

Recalling the Dem talking point that a government can't practice terrorism by definition (lookin' at you, ARM), I see what the grand strategy is: Let AQ and friends take over entire countries and presto! no more terrorists.

Brilliant!

Aridog said...

TILT!

KCFleming said...

BHO and Hillary got those islamofascists right where they want them:

In charge.

deborah said...

Haz, IIRC Obama would have stayed in Iraq if Iraq had agreed to sign a Status Of Forces Agreement, which they refused. Whoever was in charge at that time wanted us out.

Chip S. said...

Thanks for the reminder, deb. Thanks to Obama's claims that "he" ended the war, I'd forgotten that the SOFA calling for pulling out all US troops by the end of 2011 was in fact agreed to by the Iraqi parliament before Bush left office.

And the Iraqis thought that was too long.

So Obama's spin has come back to haunt him. Too bad, in this case.

KCFleming said...

Submission Accomplished!

Michael Haz said...

@Deborah - The
SOFA was being negotiated, and the Obama administration found one point of agreement. Rather than negotiating that issue with al-Maliki, Obama pulled out the last American troops.

Iraq was at that time peaceful, has held democratic elections, and has become as normal as a country in the middle east can become.

Al-Maliki wanted US presence in military bases near the largest cities, promises of air support if necessary, and continuation of the US-led training programs for the Iraqi military and police.

Obama bailed on that.

The question now is when US forces will return. They will, count on that. When ISIS invades Saudi Arabia, or the UAE, or Qatar, there will be pleas for help form America.

Michael Haz said...

one point of disagreement, not agreement. Sorry

Amartel said...

@3:10
That was awesome.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Ah, so the homophobic lawn troll is complaining about deletions.

You seemed to not mind when you used gayness as an insult to go down the memory hole, you sniveling little charity case.

Chip S. said...

Where's the error in this Reason article from Sept. 2012?

Money graf:

The last U.S. troops left Iraq in December 2011, while Barack Obama was president, but the “status of forces agreement” that governed the departure of U.S. troops was actually negotiated between Iraqi and U.S. officials in late 2008, under the auspices of President George W. Bush. In fact, none other than the Huffington Post actually pointed out that as president, Obama was actually interested in keeping troops in Iraq past the agreed-upon 2011 deadline, explaining that “the president ultimately had no choice but to stick to candidate Obama's plan -- thanks, of all things, to an agreement signed by George W. Bush.” Just six months before the Bush deadline, Obama tried to foist 10,000 U.S. troops on the Iraqis past 2011.

It's fair to discuss Obama's action or inaction in the face of these new developments, but for the most part this seems to be primarily on the Iraqis.

Icepick said...

Thanks for pointing that out, ChipS, as it spared me the need to do so.

The question is what should be done now.

Also, someone today pointed out that ISIS IS apparently an organized and trained military unit. Who trained them and organized them. That would be the enemy to go after.

Icepick said...

The strategy of attempting to turn Iraq into a western-style liberal democracy WAS Bush's choice, as was the attempt to dip it in the relative cheap. (That is without a long and virtually open-ended occupation.) That looks like a poor pair of choices on his part.

What matters now is how to proceed. Obama could make the point at one time that Iraq was the 'bad' war because it took the focus off the hunt for al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Now we have an al Qaeda franchise taking over Iraq. By his old rationale, this is an enemy we should fight.

Politically, this is how HE has framed things in the past, and it is how questions to him should be phrased now. Arguing about Bush's negotiated frame-work for withdrawal, and Obama's opinion of same, is at the very best a distraction.

deborah said...

Haz, the sticking point was the immunity of US troops from Iraqi courts, or some such. That could not be brooked.

deborah said...

Thanks ChipS for the info :)

What to do now, Ice? What we should have done after Saddam was deposed; leave them the eff alone and let Allah sort them out.

Lydia said...

From a 2011 Wall St. Journal article that disagrees with the Reason article re the SOFA and says Obama didn't give it his best try, unlike the Bush administration:

The popular explanation is that the Iraqis refused to provide legal immunity for U.S. troops if they are accused of breaking Iraq's laws. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki himself said: "When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible. The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

But Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi political figures expressed exactly the same reservations about immunity in 2008 during the negotiation of the last Status of Forces Agreement. Indeed those concerns were more acute at the time because there were so many more U.S. personnel in Iraq—nearly 150,000, compared with fewer than 50,000 today. So why was it possible for the Bush administration to reach a deal with the Iraqis but not for the Obama administration?

Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The administration didn't even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate.


More here.

Darcy said...

I wonder how the war would have gone during Bush's terms if he hadn't had to deal with so much undermining politically. But this is partly his fault too. Reagan would have sold his vision better.

I do believe that Bush and his team had good reasons to believe in his original vision. Just didn't happen. But the story of why it didn't happen is still unfolding and wasn't nearly all predictable.

I was originally a supporter of our Iraq efforts, but that support haunts me know. So many precious lives lost. I don't want to risk any more treasure there.

Trooper York said...

So many brave Americans dead. So much blood and treasure wasted.

The Muslim fanatics triumphant all over the Middle East.

It was to be expected when one was elected to be our President.

Rabel said...

"What we should have done after Saddam was deposed; leave them the eff alone and let Allah sort them out."

And if Allah's sorting leads to a takeover of Pakistan and its nukes? Or when Allah's sorting leads to large scale terrorist training facilities as in pre-war Afghanistan and the development of thousands of suicidal jihadis to attack the Great Satan?

Hiding in the basement only works for so long when a determined and motivated enemy of our way of life is allowed the ways and means to effectively attack us in our homeland.

Without allies in the region and a military presence on their turf to keep a boot on their neck and deter those actions, the result is inevitable.

Always remember, Deb, radical Islamists are once again on the rise and they want you to submit or die. That's reality and you can't wish it away.

Chip S. said...

Obama didn't give it his best try, unlike the Bush administration

I don't have access to that article, so can't really figure out what supplemental agreement Max Boot wanted.

What seems pretty clear from what I've read is that the Iraqi gov't didn't particularly want US troops there after 2008, let alone 2011.

But, as Icepick says, that's all immaterial now. The operative part of the SOFA that was agreed to says:

the Security Agreement provides for “strategic deliberations” between the parties in the event of external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq, and provides that, as mutually agreed by the parties, the United States “shall take appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic, or military measures” to deter the threat.

It should also be noted that the Bush Administration did not submit the agreements to the Senate for its advice and consent as a treaty
or request statutory authorization for the agreements by Congress.

edutcher said...

Haz is right. the Iraqis wanted to renegotiate but all this national security, leader of the Free World stuff bores him.

Chip S. said...

ed, would you provide a link to a non-gated article laying this out? I don't recall all of this stuff, but it seems illogical that the Iraqis desperately wanted US troops to remain there but nevertheless wouldn't relent on the issue of troop immunity.

Icepick said...

What to do now, Ice? What we should have done after Saddam was deposed; leave them the eff alone and let Allah sort them out.

Not an unreasonable position.

Without allies in the region and a military presence on their turf to keep a boot on their neck and deter those actions, the result is inevitable.

And exactly how long do we, in North America, need to keep our boots on the throats of a bunch of towel heads on the other side of the planet? How long do you think it is feasible, from the standpoint of domestic politics, to keep a large force in the MENA region to suppress those camel fuckers?

The North didn't have the political will to keep their boot on the neck of the South for more than 12 years after the end of the War Between the States, and they were right next door. (And they wouldn't have had the will to do it that long if it hadn't been for the will of one of the most popular Presidents the nation had ever seen, one of the most strong-willed men this nation has ever spawned.)

It's easy to keep troops in civilized countries in Western Europe or in Japan for decades. That's even true for S. Korea once the place got civilized. (Plus R&R in Japan was a popular incentive.)

But when have we ever had the will to keep putting our troops out there to be shot at endlessly?

We had the right idea decades ago: Put bastards in charge, and back them up. It worked in Iran until we got weak-kneed, and it worked with Egypt and Iraq for a while too. Western-style liberal democracy with camel fuckers and towel heads is a non-starter, as is unending military occupation. People want out of Afghanistan now, and we had every reason to go.

But Americans don't have the patience for never-ending war, never have and never will. Win the goddamned thing, or stay home.

Amartel said...

So.
Dead Iraqis.
No longer an urgent moral imperative?

Lydia said...

Chip S.,

Sorry about that WSJ article being gated; I found the article through a search and got right in. Strange.

Anyway, about your comment that it seems "illogical that the Iraqis desperately wanted US troops to remain there but nevertheless wouldn't relent on the issue of troop immunity" -- here's another paragraph from the piece providing more info on that:

The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn't insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn't require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers' excessive demands, but he didn't.

Darcy said...

Sounds like a poison pill.

Chip Ahoy said...

Shorter Tim Kreider: ultimately, war in Iraq is all about me.

Me me me me me me me me me.

What an intolerable essay.

And this is why I cannot support war.

Why can the U.S. not ever engage in war? Why can the U.S. never prevail in war? Because Democrats that's why.

Democrats will make sure we lose war one way or another. Even when we win war, we lose war. Democrats will simply not accept a Republican-led war and they absolutely SUCK at handling guns and all armaments. Democrats cannot be trusted with guns or anything that goes a'splody.

I hate admitting this, but I must. It's what I see

It is the reason I've turned my back on my one-time friends. They're complete dip shits on anything serious. They're all intolerable.

Regarding domestic policy their attitude is straight up cynicism as evidenced in Fast and Furious and other various associated gun running programs so clearly designed to bust moves on U.S. 2nd amendment protection that they despise, their continuously sensationalizing gun-related catastrophes in media, bringing new ones for the sensation they cause and then immediately jump their hobby horse and whip that bitch to death.

And in foreign relations evidenced in Benghazi so clearly a failed scheme in getting arms to Syrian insurgents. (helicopter downed by Taliban with stinger missile traced back by new serial numbers NYPost)

My own character is weak. I fall back to my own weakness in processing these things. Listening to Democrat spin masters saying today on "Anyone but right wingers could have predicted this outcome (in Iraq) when George Bush launched an un-winnable war." Yes yes yes yes yes, 1,000 times yes, Goddamnit yes un winnable when Democrats pull out as they did in Vietnam, insisting by their own action to prove their conceit. And it will always be so. But more than that, my, how that flapping mouth our yours never ending is so perfectly shaped to accept my cock. *click*

Who couldn't predict this in Iraq when a Democrat takes over from a Republican enterprise. Lives spent mean nothing compared to their own conceit shown in the essay linked. It must fail to prove their conceit.

And as to the real war that must be fought, in Afghanistan, again Democrat leadership cannot be trusted there either. Again lives spent mean nothing next to their own political desires.

All that means never ever engage in war. You are not trusted. Flatly not trusted. Not now, not ever. Not ever again.

Chip S. said...

Thanks. Lydia.

The Iraqi parliament did in fact ratify the 2008 SOFA, which did grant immunity to US troops thru the end of 2011. That last part seems to have been insisted upon by the US Congress. So there may have been some diplomatic reasons for not wanting to deviate from that in any extension of the agreement. I don't know.

My inclination right now is not to blame Obama for following Bush's timeline for exiting Iraq, and instead to just focus on what's the right thing to do now.

Chip Ahoy said...

To get to the WSJ article, type the title in a new window and go to directly through Google.

(they cannot pass up on the page views. Greed prevents them. Same with NYT)

edutcher said...

Chip S. said...

ed, would you provide a link to a non-gated article laying this out? I don't recall all of this stuff, but it seems illogical that the Iraqis desperately wanted US troops to remain there but nevertheless wouldn't relent on the issue of troop immunity.

I do recall it, and the Iraqis were willing to renegotiate.

It may have gone nowhere, but Choom wasn't interested in even investigating it.

Max Boot had a good piece on it in the WSJ.

Michael Haz said...

Thanks for that additional copy, Lydia. It shows, I think, that there was a relatively easy work-around that had been used in the past that Obama refused to use when it was his turn to negotiate the SOFA.

Plus, there are no "sticking points" that cannot become unstuck with application of more American money, in bribes or otherwise.

Remember that Bush was in weekly telephone contact with al-Mailki, had him spend time at the ranch in Crawford, and welcomed him to the White House many times. He built a relationship. Obama was in contact with him once in 8 months while the SOFA was being discussed.

Shouting Thomas said...

The U.S. seems too sunk in spoiled brat decadence to even defend itself.

Lydia said...

I'm slightly encouraged that Obama actually used the word "jihadists" today when talking about what's happening in Iraq. Especially since the NY Times and Wash. Post front-page stories right now are following PC policy and referring to them as "militants."

Amartel said...

Well, they're jihadists now because inconvenient. Clinging to their guns and religion. Interrupting the royal victory narrative.

Chip S. said...

The U.S. seems too sunk in spoiled brat decadence to even defend itself

6,717 soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably like to be able to tell you to piss off.

Shouting Thomas said...

6,717 soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably like to be able to tell you to piss off.

I think that it is the Obama admin that is telling those soldiers to piss off.

edutcher said...

Chip S. said...

The U.S. seems too sunk in spoiled brat decadence to even defend itself

6,717 soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably like to be able to tell you to piss off.


I think the reference was more to the political class, but those who volunteered to go in harm's way do seem to be the exception.

There was that piece some time ago where the Army said 3/4 of american youth were physically unfit for duty.

Chip S. said...

I've never been a "Bush lied, people died" kind of guy, but the idea that those deaths are Obama's fault is one of the most ridiculous insinuations I've ever seen on the WWW.

How many of those 10,000 support troops Max Boot wanted to station in Iraq indefinitely would be dying right now in a major battle? How many more Americans are you willing to sacrifice, over how many years, to realize Max Boot's neocon dreams?

I hate to stoop to source indictment, but in checking Boot's website I came upon this gem: Qaddafi Must Go. Money quote:

But while the cease-fire, if real, is good news—it gives breathing room to the rebels in Benghazi…

Also, this:

We should also dispatch special forces and CIA operatives to meet with the resistance and assess their needs. There is an obvious need for outside specialists to help train the rebels and to coordinate any offensive they undertake with allied forces.

Boot seems determined to keep re-enacting the Vietnam War until it turns out right. So I would like to see someone else's analysis of Obama's decision to stick w. Bush's original timetable in Iraq.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Chip

I don't know about the neocon stuff, and I'm not a fan of foreign adventurism, but Al-Qaeda just acquired a ton of money, weapons, and oil fields and is headed toward a potential alliance with a nuclear armed Iran.

They intend to use their newfound power to bring the war against the infidels to the U.S.

I have no advice on how to stop this.

Chip S. said...

ST, I agree that this is obviously a huge disaster. And I think the lesson of Benghazi--that Obama doesn't really have the ability to make command decisions in a crisis--is really going to be made clear in the next few days.

I hope I'm wrong.

In terms of hindsight, I'm amazed that Bush the Elder gets such a pass. Iraq used to be a reliable killer of Iranians and no threat to the US. Then GHWB decided that the allocation of drilling rights bw Iraq and Kuwait was worth destabilizing all that.

Lydia said...

Chip S.,

It's very interesting that Boot has a piece up right now at Commentary in which he's much softer on Obama and SOFA than he was in that 2011 WSJ article.

And, with regard to what's happening now, he says this:

Maliki himself is largely to blame for the resurgence of ISIS because he has so alienated Sunnis that many have been driven to support the terrorists as their defenders. Maliki has also undermined the effectiveness of the Iraqi Security Forces by politicizing them. Under those circumstances, American airstrikes would do nothing to change the conditions which have given rise to ISIS and would instead foster a narrative that the U.S. is supporting Shiite sectarianism in the civil war raging across the Middle East. Same goes for rushing Apache helicopters, F-16 fighters, and Hellfire missiles to Iraq so they can be employed by Iraq’s own military. Such advanced assets can be invaluable as part of a larger counterinsurgency strategy but they cannot substitute for the lack of such a strategy.

Obama should tell Maliki (and he should get on the telephone to deliver the message personally) that greater U.S. military aid will only be forthcoming if Maliki makes dramatic moves to mollify the Sunnis, depoliticize the Iraqi security forces, and limit his own almost-unlimited authority. Better still, the U.S. would be even more willing to support Iraq if Maliki were to step down as prime minister–admittedly a condition that would be hard to get Maliki to agree to but one that the U.S. could press with other political factions which are already suspicious of the prime minister.

Absent substantial political reform in Iraq, greater U.S. military aid at this juncture would be counterproductive. But the very dire nature of the situation today makes it at least marginally more likely that the government may actually make political reforms needed to ensure the state’s survival. If that were to happen, the U.S. should offer to provide not just airpower but intelligence analysts, military advisers, Special Operations Forces, and other assets to enable the Iraqi Security Forces to strike back effectively against ISIS.

Amartel said...

"Win the goddamned thing, or stay home."

Or, surgical strike. Go in, remove the cancer, cut off its blood supply, then leave. Rinse and repeat as needed and without apology. Hanging around and trying to win hearts and minds is clearly a non-starter. It's wildly expensive. We get blamed for everything no matter what. It becomes a political game in the US and internationally. The government we set up depends on our largesse and expertise in order to operate. When we finally do leave, the resentful population turns on the US backed government and the resentful population back home in the U.S. no longer cares.

So many Iraqis were willing to try after getting out from under Saddam's smelly boot heel. Now they're dying by the score and nobody cares. All those bleeding hearts who trumpted those (inflated) numbers about dead Iraqis. Where are they now?

Michael Haz said...

Obama is 'considering' bombers and other air support.

That won't work. In order for bombers to be effective, there needs to be boots on the ground - spotters - who can help direct the strikes. We don't have that in Iraq, and getting it into place would take weeks, at least.

Chip S. said...

Iraqi military can't be used as spotters?

edutcher said...

Chip S. said...

I've never been a "Bush lied, people died" kind of guy, but the idea that those deaths are Obama's fault is one of the most ridiculous insinuations I've ever seen on the WWW.

Really?

Aid and comfort like the campus commandos gave the VC and the NVA did nothing to contribute to those 58,000 names on that wall?

We all know better. Anytime the Left supports this country's enemies, it encourages them to keep pushing and that has always cost American lives.

How many of those 10,000 support troops Max Boot wanted to station in Iraq indefinitely would be dying right now in a major battle? How many more Americans are you willing to sacrifice, over how many years, to realize Max Boot's neocon dreams?

Probably damned few since we wouldn't be going along with any of Barry's other harebrained schemes.

Again, Iraq was quiet when Dubya left and probably would have stayed that way because we wouldn't have sent the bad guys an engraved invite to come back. What the Choom Gang has done in the Middle East is consistently side with Al Qaeda and encourage an image of weakness.

As Michael Haz put it in the thread above, "It took, what, six months from the time Obama backed down in regards tot the Ukraine until ISIS began its acquisition of Iraq?". As I say, encouraging an image of weakness

As for Boot going along with ousting Khadaffy, that is another ball park - if he was wrong there, he was wrong. Although Boot's ideas seem more what we did in A-stan than 'Nam, and we won there. As for refighting 'Nam, it seems Dubya did it and won.

So you're trying to tar Boot with the wrong brush, which seems something somebody trying to shift the blame to anybody but the Choom Gang would do.

As for the neocon nonsense, spare me the Lefty/Libertarian bomb throwing.

edutcher said...

Chip S. said...

Iraqi military can't be used as spotters?

Not like our guys.

You know this.

Icepick said...

Obama was in contact with him once in 8 months while the SOFA was being discussed.

Which is about as often as he contacts Congress. This isn't so much about ignoring Iraq as it is a pattern of Obama not liking to deal with people. Even Dem Congressmen have bitched about this anonymously.

Michael Haz said...

Forward Air Controller is not an easy skill to learn. It requires SEAL-like abilities, plus a the ability to quickly do math in one's head, memorization of rules of engagement, the ability to be stealthy, and of course the ability to evade capture or sustain confinement and torture.

What we've seen of the Iraqi military this week is that they are more likely to surrender, run away, or change sides that they are to stay and fight. Not going to work as Forward Air Controllers.

It could be possible to try using A-10s as spotters, if any are in theater, but they are low distance birds, and need a lot of support, both in the air and on the ground. Since the US has bugged out of Iraq, that ain't available.

Michael Haz said...

Besides, if the Obama administration isn't deploying military resources to help that humanitarian disaster happening in Texas and Arizona. why would anyone think they'll help Iraqis?

Chip S. said...

As for refighting 'Nam, it seems Dubya did it and won.

There's a lot of counterfactual history in this thread, and a handful of facts.

The principal fact is that George W. Bush signed a SOFA w. the Iraqi gov't in Dec 2008. It called for US troops to be gone by the end of 2011.

This is, presumably, what you mean by "Dubya … won."

Now that the whole idea that we could establish a smoothly functioning democratic gov't to rule Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds stands refuted by events, you want to pin 100% of the blame on Obama for not obtaining an agreement that Bush himself was unable to obtain: 10,000 troops stationed in Iraq indefinitely and immune from Iraqi laws.

Whether or not that might have prevented the current mess, what factual basis do you have for believing that such a deal was attainable?

Chip S. said...

What we've seen of the Iraqi military this week is that they are more likely to surrender, run away, or change sides that they are to stay and fight. Not going to work as Forward Air Controllers.

Somehow the Iraqi air force is managing to conduct its own bombing raids.

Maybe it's really difficult to coordinate spotters and bombers from different armies. I don't know anything about this stuff, other than what I read.

Michael Haz said...

Barack Obama has been POTUS since January 20, 2009. This mess is on his plate.

He was going to re-set how the world viewed America, remember that? America would return to being respected by the rest of the world because cowboy diplomacy ended when Obama was sworn in. Remember?

New ideas. Smart diplomacy, remember that?

It is on his plate.

deborah said...

Lydia delivers again :)

Here's a short piece speculating about an Obama/Maliki agreement by-pass of the Iraqi parliament. The questions is was it important for the Iraqi parliament to back SOFA if we were actually going to stay? The Bush agreement was based on us leaving.

Rabel, it begs the question why we came and and destabilized Iraq in the first place, as it was our bulwark against Iran. The entire thing was the most massive clusterfuck in the history of war.

But I would say Amartel has the best patch: bomb them into submission. Sending the troops back is insane.

Michael Haz said...

Look at the globe for a moment. How the F is America going to get heavy bombers into the skies over Iraq? Nevermind the problem getting flyover permission for countries that hate us, where's the nearest bomber base? North Dakota?

Say we figure out how to get birds there. Dontcha think Iran will fire up its radars and missiles? Pretty thin chance of getting bombers to Iraq, in my opinion.

Chip S. said...

Iran is helping Iraq defend Baghdad from ISIS.

deborah said...

Is Syria in a position to object to a fly-over?

Icepick said...

ISIS isn't al Qaeda anymore, and in fact they're currently at war with al Qaeda's proxy group in Syria. They're sure as shit not our friends, but this is another very complicated bit of ME politics. I'm all for bombing some jihadists, but lets not pretend the situation is cut and dry.

Icepick said...

So Assad and the Ayatollahs ate both rushing, as best they can, to the defense of our "ally" in Baghdad, while we are contemplating going after the most effective killers of al Qaeda on the planet.

I'm starting to think Obama's natural indecisive incompetence my work out for us again.....

edutcher said...

Chip S. said...

As for refighting 'Nam, it seems Dubya did it and won.

There's a lot of counterfactual history in this thread, and a handful of facts.

The principal fact is that George W. Bush signed a SOFA w. the Iraqi gov't in Dec 2008. It called for US troops to be gone by the end of 2011.

This is, presumably, what you mean by "Dubya … won."


He defeated Al Qaeda and Saddam, didn't he?

Dubya wanted the men home, not to go on a badly mishandled surge in A-stan.

Whether or not that might have prevented the current mess, what factual basis do you have for believing that such a deal was attainable?

What factual basis do you have that it wasn't?

Somehow the Iraqi air force is managing to conduct its own bombing raids.

Anybody can drop bombs.

Are they hitting the bad guys?

Iran is helping Iraq defend Baghdad from ISIS.

And that's supposed to be a good thing? If these guys didn't have terrorism, they'd be defenseless.

For somebody who complains about "counterfactual history in this thread, and a handful of facts", you need to rethink what you say.

Again, I quote Michael Haz from other other thread:

ISIS wants to create a caliphate in Iraq and Syria - a large country form which it can launch attacks on America, Europe and probably Israel.

The caliphate will be ISIS only, All others, including all other Muslim sects, will be (are being) killed. They are brutal. There are news reports this evening of them beheading thousands, shooting tens of thousands, and nailing living people - other Muslims - to crosses to die. They hate the west, and want it destroyed. They also hate the Turks because Ataturk abolished rule by calphiate in 1924 in favor a democratized government. Good luck Turkey.

Many of the most radical want the end of the world, as they believe that that will harken the twelfth and final Imam, who will rule an Islamic universe.


deborah said...
Here's a short piece speculating about an Obama/Maliki agreement by-pass of the Iraqi parliament. The questions is was it important for the Iraqi parliament to back SOFA if we were actually going to stay? The Bush agreement was based on us leaving.

By then the Iraqis were beginning to realize a full American pullout was not a good thing for them - that's why they were willing to renegotiate.

Rabel, it begs the question why we came and and destabilized Iraq in the first place, as it was our bulwark against Iran. The entire thing was the most massive clusterfuck in the history of war.

Iraq was stable?

How? Iraq was always one bullet away from chaos if somebody did to him what he did to the guys before him.

Saddam actively funded terrorists, the 9/11 hijackers trained outside Baghdad.

That is not stable.

Dubya learned from his mistakes and found a way to win. If you want screwups, look at Winnie Churchill's mishandling of WWII (or I) in the Mediterranean.

Is Syria in a position to object to a fly-over?

If you don't mind getting crosswise of Baby Assad's BFF, Vlad.

edutcher said...

if somebody did to him

ie, Saddam.

PS Not picking a fight with you, deborah, I just think some points get lost because of the media narrative.

Icepick said...

What factual basis do you have that it wasn't?

Well, there's the fact that it didn't happen. That at least allows for the possibility that it could NOT, in fact, happen. There is no similar evidence showing that it could HAVE happened in 2011.

Icepick said...

It's as simple* as this, ed. To help the Iraqi government we will be allying ourselves, in fact, with Ba'athists, Ayatollahs AND al Qaeda!

Perhaps we should do that, but at the very least it indicates that the situation is complex.

* Is that sarcasm or irony?

edutcher said...

The fact that it didn't happen seems to rest on the active wish of Barack Ozero that it wasn't going to.

PS Those who think bombing is the answer might want to recall that's been the US Air Force philosophy going back to the days when it was the Army Air Corps.

The only time it worked was Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The experience of Claire Chennault in China is instructive.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lydia said...

Speaking of Putin -- there's this from his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov:

We are greatly alarmed by what is happening in Iraq. We warned long ago that the affair that the Americans and the Britons stirred up there wouldn't end well," Lavrov told journalists on Thursday.

The US president declared the victory of democracy in Iraq 11 years ago, and since then "the situation has been deteriorating at an exponential rate," he said.

"Iraq's unity has been called into question. Terrorism is rampant there because the occupation forces virtually paid no attention to the internal political processes and didn't facilitate national dialogue but were pursuing exclusively their own interests," he said.

"For internal political reasons, the US withdrew their forces when the Iraqi security forces had been far from being prepared to enforce law and order on the entire territory of the country," he said.


Yeah, mostly irritating as hell, but he's got the early withdrawal just right.

edutcher said...

Icepick said...

It's as simple* as this, ed. To help the Iraqi government we will be allying ourselves, in fact, with Ba'athists, Ayatollahs AND al Qaeda!

I was talking about 4 years ago when the SOFA might have been renegotiated. Different playing field now, obviously.

I see your point and it's quite valid and why I thought Syria and Libya were both bad ideas.

Problem is, how long can we ignore it?

It wasn't our fight in '32 when the Nips bombed Shanghai, or in '37 when they sunk the Panay, or in '39 when the Krauts went into Poland, or in '40 when they took Western Europe, or in '41 when they took the Balkans and went to Russia.

Then the Nips bombed America and it was our fight.

Kind of like the last 30 years or so. We kept saying, "No problem", until 9/11, and then it was our problem until the Lefties didn't like Dubya at 90% approval, so they said it wasn't our problem anymore.

When does it become our problem again?

Next time it could be a nuke.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

deborah said...
Rabel, it begs the question why we came and destabilized Iraq in the first place, as it was our bulwark against Iran.


And, we effectively installed a pro-Iranian government in Iraq.

This being said, of all the countries in the region I have the most hope for Iran. The Persians seem more rational than everyone else in the region. This is a very low bar to cross but you have to start somewhere. They seem, on the whole, a bit more sophisticated in their relationship to their religion and more interested in the world at large and their place in it. I would favor trying to improve relations with Iran. Sometimes we are too slow to forget past conflicts, Cuba being the other notable example. And besides they owe us one, given that we got rid of Saddam for them.

Icepick said...

Those who think bombing is the answer might want to recall that's been the US Air Force philosophy going back to the days when it was the Army Air Corps.

Are you seriously advocating we send in the Army? You really think there is the stomach for that domestically?

...

And let me point out, at this juncture, that the Nips were a world power on the rise in the 1930s, and the Germans were, once united, the most powerful nation in Europe AND the world's most advanced nation scientifically. (The English may have had them beat on engineering, but that's another argument.) In fact, it was fear of German science that led the British and the Americans to decide to focus on winning the war in Europe at the expense of winning the war in the Pacific.

These guys ain't that. Nor were al Qaeda. Yes, they killed a lot of people on 9/11. My company lost 295 employees and 60 or so contractors. I'm aware that they're dangerous. I'm also aware that they had to use our technology to kill that many people.

Now, the risky part in all of this is Pakistan, which is both armed with nukes and unstable as, well, a radioactive element. Tell me how attacking ISIS in order to help the Ayatollahs, the Ba'athists and al Qaeda is going to help with that real threat?

This situation is a complete clusterfuck.

XRay said...

Interesting to read such a divergent array of opinions here on this subject.

I don't have one, other than than it has been a clusterfuck of a region since about AD 700 or so unless occupied by murderous rule. That ain't us. So then what... options are few.

XRay said...

That's funny, two clusterfucks in a row, start of a trend perhaps.

edutcher said...

Icepick said...

Those who think bombing is the answer might want to recall that's been the US Air Force philosophy going back to the days when it was the Army Air Corps.

Are you seriously advocating we send in the Army? You really think there is the stomach for that domestically?


No, I'm not, but my question remains - when can we no longer afford to do anything about the situation except leave as a political football for the anti-America Left.

And let me point out, at this juncture, that the Nips were a world power on the rise in the 1930s, and the Germans were, once united, the most powerful nation in Europe AND the world's most advanced nation scientifically

No, the Nips were a regional power; they had the Chinese and the various colonial outposts outmatched.

Once the first team from Britain and the US arrived, the Nips faded in less than 2 years.

As for the Krauts, they weren't "the world's most advanced nation scientifically" once all the Jewish scientists started running for their lives. As for being the main power in Europe, remember once the Yanks and the Russkies took up the combined arms doctrine (invented by the Limeys in WWI BTW) and turned their production and technological capabilities to full power, the Krauts were left in the dust (or snow).

These guys ain't that. Nor were al Qaeda. Yes, they killed a lot of people on 9/11. My company lost 295 employees and 60 or so contractors. I'm aware that they're dangerous. I'm also aware that they had to use our technology to kill that many people.

Yes, but as long as the Left sings, "Imagine" and "Give Peace A Chance", they'll try to make sure we don't use that technology, as the last 10 years have shown.

PS Sorry about your loss. I didn't know.

Trooper York said...

Putin is the answer. He will step in when these ragheads threaten his interests which they are sure to do soon.

We can sit back and let him do it.

Let him spend the blood and treasure of his nation on these ignorant towelheads.


No, Poot, old KGB hand that he is, will find a way to use them one way or another against us.

The Russkies had their Beslan, but have been left alone otherwise.

We have the Messiah and he know better.

Lydia said...

There was that bombing at a train station before the start of the Olympics in Sochi. That was just last December. Quite a few people killed.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

XRay said...
Interesting to read such a divergent array of opinions here on this subject.


Yes, it is always more interesting when people deviate from our two political orthodoxies. It is a shame we don't have more than two political parties. I guess even with multiple parties they might all end up being bought off but just maybe politicians in one of them might find it in their own interests to stand against our entrenched financial oligarchy. Not going to happen with the current set-up, despite Cantor's unexpected demise.

edutcher said...

Lydia said...

There was that bombing at a train station before the start of the Olympics in Sochi. That was just last December. Quite a few people killed.

Who took credit?

edutcher said...

I guess even with multiple parties they might all end up being bought off but just maybe politicians in one of them might find it in their own interests to stand against our entrenched financial oligarchy

Yes, the parliamentary system in Europe, so loved by the Left, works so much better.

deborah said...

Ed,
"By then the Iraqis were beginning to realize a full American pullout was not a good thing for them - that's why they were willing to renegotiate."

Yes, but their parliament wouldn't sign off on SOFA. My question is should we stay in a country without assurance from their legislature on the status of our troops regarding immunity, i.e., they are not to try them in their courts (except under certain circumstances), when the people wanted us gone.

"Iraq was stable?"

Stable enough.

"Saddam actively funded terrorists, the 9/11 hijackers trained outside Baghdad."

As you know they were mostly Saudi. I thought the holed up in Afgh. Didn't know about the Baghdad training.

"Dubya learned from his mistakes and found a way to win."

Taking his eye off the ball in Afgh when it was all sewn up, and then turning to Iraq was an egregious error. I don't consider what happened and what it took winning.

"If you don't mind getting crosswise of Baby Assad's BFF, Vlad."

Vlad is pro Syria (Shia/Alawite) and pro Shia Iran. He will be for going after these jihadi/wahabi/salafists, esp. because those types are a threat to Russian stability.

No worries, Ed, bring it :)

Lydia said...

Iraq-Linked Group Claims Responsibility for Volgograd Attacks

deborah said...

ARM I feel the same about Iran, their approach to religion, etc. I have an Obama goes to Iran tag.

edutcher said...

Didn't know, Lydia, thanks.

Still, they seem to have their trouble confined to Moslem areas, and even there, it's fairly seldom.

YMMV

deborah said...

As you know they were mostly Saudi. I thought the holed up in Afgh. Didn't know about the Baghdad training.

It was suspected they trained at Salman Pak. We didn't know for sure until we went there.

Also, the WMDs were real, among all the other issues.

I don't know it was taking our eye off the ball. A-stan was under control while Dubya was there - 3 times as many casualties in half the time, thanks to the Choom Gang.

PS Thank you.

Icepick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Icepick said...

Vlad is best served by instability in the ME, because it drives up the price of oil - including Russian oil.

Trooper York said...

If we have the Keystone Pipeline and go full bore into fracking we can drive the price of energy down.

Putin always puts his countries interest first. So if radical Islam moves too close to his latest conquest in the Crimea he will move. As he did in Ukraine.