Posted on 09/03/2014 6:02:22 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Both Paul and Whiton overstate the consequences of US actions in Syria for the rise of ISIS. Paul argues there was too much intervention, Whiton argues not enough, or, at best, not enough to the right people. Has the US armed the "moderate" opposition to Assad, Whiton implies, the rise of ISIS would have been checked. The Islamic State was not checked, however, by an Iraqi army showered with billions of dollars of US military aid and years of expert training. It is unlikely that the supposedly moderate "Free Syrian Army," made up of "farmers and dentists," would have fared any better.
Three years ago, Whiton argued for a more robust US intervention in the Libyan civil war. He noted that in the fight against Qaddafi, "[t]he Libyan rebels are doing remarkably well politically and militarily. The cities they control have been governed justly and show they are not inclined toward Islamist-style tyranny." The US did coordinate with the Libyan rebels and launch airstrikes against Qaddafi, amid the cheering of Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, but not with the long-term results one would have hoped for. The blood of three diplomatic personnel stains the sand in Benghazi. Today, our vacant embassy in Tripoli
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Without context how can anyone make good decisions? Recently, I joined a discussion of college students on Iraq. When I explained our history with Iraq especially the ‘no fly zone’ (how could we leave the middle east after 9/11 with Saddam Hussein in power and the Town Hall Meeting in Columbus Ohio Feb 1998 with Albright, Berger and Cohen, etc.) they were blank. It’s as if history started yesterday.
In both Libya and Syria the Brotherhood allowed enough secular idealists to be cannon fodder until they served their purpose of securing arms and support. This worked well in Egypt until the rank and file saw just what life under the Brotherhood would be like and they switched just enough support to the Army.
It’s a truism that the worse a dictator is, the more difficult forming a good government after an overthrow. Haiti is the classic example. Throw strong, well lead Islamists into the mix and you’ve got today’s Middle East.
Obama made either the wrong or an incomplete move at every turn. A President hasn’t the time to dither and dithering is Obama’s trademark.
Young people feel history began when they became aware of it.
The libertarian foreign policy is the Obama foreign policy.
What he is basically advocating is the "tit for tat" policy that Israel uses against its aggressors.
Israel doesn't stand by and do nothing, nor do they proclaim a war against all their enemies. Instead they attempt negotiations and inflict severe pain whenever pain is inflicted on them.
Since it would have been a political non-starter to establish a benevolent dictatorship in Iraq after its conquest, we should have stuck to the no-fly zones approach and just dropped more bombs in more places whenever Saddam or his evil sons did anything we found distasteful.
The same goes for ISIS, Syria, Lybia, Iran, North Korea, etc.
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.