Posted on 08/16/2014 6:53:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
"I think this is going to take some time," our president warned last Saturday as he took off for a vacation on Martha's Vineyard, maybe because he felt he had to offer some explanation as Iraq collapsed along with his foreign policy in general. What was once Iraq is now divided, like ancient Gaul, into three parts -- Shi'a, Sunni and Kurdish -- all of which are themselves crumbling. So now Barack Obama tells us that it may take some time to put Iraq together again after it fell apart in record time once he withdrew American forces there in such haste. And according to a purely arbitrary timetable he considerately announced well in advance, lest the enemy be surprised.
The war this president claimed to have ended there three years ago is back -- if it ever went away. But to this president, history is one of the plastic arts. He can reshape it any time. And often does. Now he tells us it'll take a while to end the war there. You think? The way it always takes more time to rebuild something than to destroy it? The bloody consequences of his own decision to withdraw from Iraq prematurely continue to haunt him, which may be why he's still trying to rationalize it. Even as, little by little, he's being forced to reverse it.
After all the blood and treasure America sacrificed to hold Iraq together, this president and both his secretaries of state (Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry) have managed to squander the hard-won gains achieved there in no time at all. Now there's change you can really believe in.
Only now does this president tell us, oh, yes, and by the way, it's going to take some time to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. And only now is Hillary Clinton, having retired from her high post in this administration, confiding that she had doubts about this president's foreign policy all along. For only now is she preparing to run for the presidency herself, and realizing that she has some explaining to do.
What a show. It would be amusing if it weren't so tragic, for the numberless victims of this administration's blundering ways are all too real, their suffering all too palpable.
But don't fret. A few bombs dropped here and there should get the job done. Just how effectively was summed up by this lede on a front-page story in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal: "WASHINGTON -- After four days of pounding targets in northern Iraq, U.S. officials warned Monday that the campaign was unlikely to inflict serious damage to the militant group now controlling large parts of Iraq and Syria."
My, what a surprise. After lavishing neglect on this growing threat for years, the president admits it might take some time to save whatever can be saved of what was once Iraq. That is, if he's really interested in saving it, rather than just going through the motions.
These thousands of new refugees, tens of thousands of them, are sure to be followed by hundreds of thousands fated to share their ordeal as Iraq turns into the latest Syria, where the bloody results of this administration's negligence have been all too clear all too long. For years.
Unless Washington can somehow get a grip on what's happening in that part of the world and reverse its disastrous course, these latest victims in Iraq will surely not be the last. For their country has been left prey to the tender mercies of still another horde of fanatics who have materialized out of the desert wastes and started advancing in all directions.
An air drop or two may not make much of a difference at this point. Or even the dispatch of a few hundred Special Forces to get a fraction of these refugees off the barren mountaintop where they'd been left to swelter and suffer. America, once the hope of the world, now does little but watch as this tragedy unfolds.
Yes, this sudden show of force is better than nothing, but just barely. As the whole world surely recognizes, whether friend or ever advancing foe. By now even the British and Italians and French -- the French! -- have urged that something be done to stop this Islamist version of the Khmer Rouge from wiping out still more innocents.
By now even Hillary Clinton -- Hillary Rodham Clinton! -- is saying it was a mistake not to have done something earlier to stop the never-ending carnage in Syria, which is what gave rise to this ever-advancing army of Islamist crazies.
Only now does Mrs. Clinton tell us she had misgivings when she was actually in a position to do something about them. Back in 2006, she had dismissed the Surge that turned Iraq around and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Back then she was telling us it would take "a willing suspension of disbelief" to believe this Surge would work. But work it did. Even though she and another senator at the time -- Barack Obama of Illinois -- said it never would.
Only now, after this president's policy in Iraq has proven so costly a failure, does she tell us she was against it all the time she served as secretary of state. If so, why didn't she say so or, even better, do something honorable -- like resign her high office in protest? But the time when a secretary of state would resign over a matter of principle seems to have passed with Cyrus Vance, who parted ways with the Carter administration when it adopted a policy he disagreed with.
It's so much more prudent for an ambitious politician to wait until a president's policy becomes a clear failure before criticizing it. Only now, as she herself prepares for a presidential run, has Mrs. Clinton decided to distance herself from her former boss.
Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. And when a great power decides to abdicate and leave history's stage to whoever will seize power for whatever low purpose, what else did our president think would happen -- that peace would suddenly break out? The man seems oblivious to reality, and what it should have taught all of us: Whenever America retreats, evil advances.
Recall that during the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama met with al-Malaki. The gist of their conversation was never reported, but al-Malaki immediately responded with a hard line on the SOFA that the Bush administration was trying to negotiate at the time.
As a consequence, the SOFA that Bush negotiated was necessarily short-term. And, when it came time to renew the SOFA, Obama couldn't be bothered to get involved...or to even give his administration's negotiating team any instructions. As a consequence, the SOFA lapsed without any renewal -- exactly how Obama had planned it in 2008.
So you think that the approval by Hillary Clinton is a sign of a wise policy?
Apparently the idea of forcibly yoking the three separate parts of present-day Iraq was originally that of one Gertrude Bell. (I happened to be rereading the Elizabeth Peters' Amelia Peabody series and saw reference to her there -- it wasn't just something I happened to know!)
saye do what?
Like it says in my tagline: Now we all have to pay the concequenses
Iraq was a success after the surge by General Petreaous. That arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave revered the success when he started to pull out the troops in 2009, and especially when he announced to the world and especially to the terrorists the date of the withdrawal
“...off if we had followed Joe’s idea of a loose coalition of 3 states.”
Why are you giving Biden credit for a 2005 State Department and Kurdish recommendation? It was voted down by the Shia and Sunni leadership and GWB accepted their choice of a central Republic vs. a federation of autonomous states.
Biden had NOTHING to do with this other than taking credit for something he had no involvement in.
This is not the end of Iraq. It is the end of a singular central republic in favor of a federation of autonomous states with a central parliament to address limited national issues. This is what was recommended in 2005 based upon the socio-political makeup and development of Iraq.
The question is can we ever overcome it? I doubt it
Well, we did take down Saddam in 2003, not 1991 and, contrary to what Cheney envisioned, it was replaced with a central Republic. This was contrary to the recommendation of the State Department and several think tanks for a federated republic as Cheney discusses. The weak central parliament of the federation Cheney speaks of would have dealt with the international issues Cheney mentioned. But you must appreciate the difference between 1991 and 2003. Cheney is is commenting on the force agreements of the 1990 UN resolution which did not specify removing Saddam, taking over Iraq or basing any troops long term in the country. All being different from the 2003 invasion the 1991 invasion is not comparable with the 2003 invasion. Different requirements, objectives, resources and end states.
In their own development almost all western governments were first a federation of states before a central republic was established. Iraq is post-tribal. It was not stable or responsible to replace one central government republic with another when the society was just exiting tribalism. But this is what the Shia and Sunni PMs wanted when the Iraq’s government form was being debated in 2005. Likely believing they’re prevail in a winner-take-all contest for power. So this is where it’s gotten them in 2014. Their having their big fight for power but it’s affecting more than just them. Only the State Department, some US think tanks and the Kurds agreed to a federation of states. Unfortunately, GWB decided for the majority Sunni-Shia desires not appreciating that each intended to dominate the government after eliminating their opponents.
So we’re back to 2005 except with vastly reduced US troops and a vastly larger insurgency. Neither GWB or Obama could do much when 85% of the Iraqi leadership wanted the US out of the country so they could wrest control of Iraq for themselves. If anyone made a mistake it was GWB for accepting the will of the 85% who simply wanted to kick each others’ assess rather than the recommendation of the analysts for a much more sustainable form of government. When all the power and wealth is controlled by a central government there’s going to be fighting.
So now it ‘devolves’ to the sustainable political structure of federated states. And this is one of the main reasons it was recommended, because they are an outgrowth of their tribes and are stable, cohesive and more responsible to their people.
Lastly don’t discount the influence and respect of US troops by all sides in Iraq. Most of them will trust a US-brokered agreement but not each other if nothing else for the sheer fact we had the power to enforce agreements and prosecute violations.
In the near future we will likely obtain basing agreements from the Kurds. After that perhaps a SOFA and basing agreements with the Shia. When the Sunni state solidifies post-ISIS they will likely request us there too to enforce and protect their position considering our influence with the other 2 groups. Particularly wrt the Sunnis choosing to continue prosecuting an insurgency where they’d be subject to Kurdish and Shia-based US forces attacking them.s government form was being debated in 2005. Likely believing they
She voted for the war, didn’t she?
tuche’
So by the time December 31, 2011 rolled around it was "Vaya con Dios" ... and under the terms of the agreement signed by the President of the United States in 2008, the U.S. military had no legal standing to be there. In fact, under international law they'd be considered an invading force in a foreign country.
Sure -- the U.S. military campaign was a great "success," and Iraq was a strong and stable nation after 2007.
Don't make me laugh. After Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government was toppled, Iraq was never any more stable than Vietnam was in 1973. All that's missing now is the helicopters lifting off from the roof of the U.S. embassy.
At the very least, there should have been an acknowledgement that once we went in, we would be there for at least 20 years. Or else it would just go back to being the same hellhole once we left.
If anyone in the Bush administration had said such a thing back in 2003, the U.S. would have elected that Easter Island looking dude in 2004.
Then we shouldn’t have gone in the first place, if we weren’t willing to make that commitment.
Obama’s declaration that the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is over is a missive to the media: don’t report any more stories about Iraq that will highlight my failure. Expect the suffering there to get blacked out like the IRS scandal.
Agree completely. Our USA-PRAVDA will NEVER humiliate this embarrassment of a CIC. They are totally complicit in the destruction of this country.
It’s all so confusing to you isn’t it? So you seek a solution in a brutal dictator? In case you didn’t notice Saddam was anything but stable. Too bad for your “stable dictator” idealistic fantasies. He waged war against nearly everyone around and within his country -and lost.
When the Iraqis reform their government to a federated republic validating what was recommended by many in 2005 will you then crow about the failure of Obama’s Iraq?
Nope.
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.