Posted on 08/11/2014 7:23:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Obama’s Iraq policy in 2014 is his 2007 policy all over again. The minimal attacks on Al Qaeda are paired with the expectation that Iraqis will unite to achieve a political solution.
But what if they don’t?
In 2007, Obama had claimed that American withdrawals would pressure Iraqis into a political solution. He was wrong. The withdrawals not only failed to move Iraq toward a political solution, but they gave Maliki and his Iranian allies the power they needed to marginalize the Kurds and the Sunnis.
Obama went on insisting that the only solution to Al Qaeda could come from Iraqi unity right up until the threat of Yazidi genocide forced him to commit to air strikes. Denial of aid from the United States even as ISIS forces were closing in on Baghdad and Erbil had still failed to lead to a political solution.
Even now Obama is still reading from the same worn political unity script. But if even the threat of genocide hasn’t brought political unity in Iraq, is there anything that will?
It’s unknown whether Obama ever really believed in some anti-colonialist doctrine that convinced him that Iraqis would unite after an American withdrawal or whether he was using it as a fig leaf for his preemptive withdrawal platform, but time and mass murder have discredited him and it either way.
Middle Eastern countries with mixed ethnic and religious populations tend to be unstable and war-torn. Israel and Lebanon are two of the obvious examples, but Iraq and Syria have long histories of conflict predating the current civil wars. Whatever stability they had came from dictators and bloodshed.
In Israel, Sunni Muslims can’t get along with the native Jewish population they had once conquered, but which had managed to achieve political independence.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
There’s no such country as “Iraq”. It exists only as a polite fiction.
He’s been on the wrong side of history in every decision he’s made.
Step one, let the Kurds have their land and leave them alone. Step two, let the Sunni and the Shia figure out the rest.
Of course you are correct, But what is so 'polite' about it? Iraq was drawn on a map at the British Foreign Office in 1916 for convenience' sake. They called it "The Empty Lot," they installed a Hashemite King and it promptly went in and out of the crapper forever after, including a serious flirtation with Hitler and Mussolini.
This is an entirely valid point, IMO. And it emphasizes what I believe to have been the general folly we undertook in Iraq ‘03. Maybe it was a good proposal for a science fair experiment. Well intentioned, perhaps, but not entirely thought out. More than “at root”....in full reality....these are tribal societies united only by their religion...and that religion having the several sects that it does. At the risk of stating the obvious, these people would just assume slaughter each other than democratically elect representatives to a Congress-type assembly that they then entrust to enact laws. These people know only one source of law. For these people to adopt generally democratic ideals and practices, the implication is that they be asked to renounce their religion. And that ain’t gonna happen.
There is no clean end of this turd to be picked up.
These people can fight off the most powerful military in the world, but can’t deal with a small group of bandits?
I dont get it.
Wouldn’t it be odd if Joe Biden was right about Iraq all along?
Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
RE: These people can fight off the most powerful military in the world,
Remind me again, exactly when did they do that?
Joe would be right, if by chance Iraq’s resources were geographically dispersed in a manner similar to the tribal divisions.
Bu they aren’t.
So any plan to divide Iraq leaves at least one group holding the shirt straw, and primed to attack the other groups.
I don’t claim to have a solution, but Slow Joe’s solution really just re-arranges the deck chairs.
Then nothing will.
were
They don’t have nukes, though.
Looking back at it now, with all the hind site available to us, containing Saddam Hussain would probably have been a better policy rather than removal.
I supported the removal of Saddam Hussain at the time, because, in light of 9/11, in light of Saddam’s support for terrorist organizations, in light of his possible WMD capabilities, and in light of all his violations of the Gulf War treaty, if anyone deserved to be removed from power, it was him.
It seemed after Saddam’s removal, Bush thought that the Iraqi people would embrace freedom and democracy after having been the victims of tyranny for so many years. That was a fatal assumption. As we all know now, the “nation building” idea was a big mistake by GWB.
The problem is obvious to all of us - the Islamic worldview. It’s the elephant in the room that none of our political leaders seem willing to consistently identify.
The world view of Islam is not based on the value of the individual soul or life as Christianity is. Christianity says love not only your neighbor, but also even your enemy. Islam insists that the entire world serve Allah. Refusal means death.
And, as you pointed out Attention Surplus, throw in the variety of Islamic sects, and even among Muslims there is no real unity.
Our Judeo-Christian worldview of the value of the individual, of justice, personal property rights, freedom and liberty of the individual, and more importantly, true tolerance of others you disagree with, and in which conflicts are settled by the rule of law - none of this is seen in Islamic nations (except to a degree in ‘secular’ Islamic nations).
As terrible as Saddam’s secular rule was, it looks as though only through sheer tyranny does an Islamic nation enjoy any sense of “unity”. At least the Christians were not being exterminated by Saddam.
It’s Islam that is never going to truly allow a democratic republic because there is no such thing as tolerance under Islam.
At the time we didn’t know there could be someone out there worse than Saddam. Turns out he was FAR from the worst.
Completely agree. I was willing to entertain the idea of invading Iraq at the time. I was neither violently opposed nor wildly enthusiastic. Win, lose, or draw, I strongly suspected it would be a decade-long effort at minimum, and who the hell needed that?
It was debated at nauseating length, for sure. Whether it was justified based on WMDs, perhaps these recent finds of neuro-weapons justified the invasion....somewhat. Going to war is the sh**ts, there’s no way around that.
It was, as I said, sort of a science-fair project, unfortunately involving thousands of deaths of our guys (inevitable) and many more Iraqi deaths.
We are in this greasy position of having many of the people in these countries, particularly Iran, actually liking the US or at least indifferent to us....but the anything-but-secular leadership needs us to be the Great Satan.
In the end, our relationship(s) with these countries involves bridging a thousand year gap in cultural development, to use a highfallutin’ phrase. I don’t think it’s a practical possibility. When all our positive efforts can be thwarted by one crazed or freaked out soldier killing a dozen villagers or putting some underwear on some prisoners’ heads, we cannot win. And I don’t think we can not not lose either.
The wrong side of the US for sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.