Posted on 06/16/2014 8:28:29 AM PDT by jazusamo
The news from Iraq that Islamic terrorists have now taken over cities that American troops liberated during the Iraq war must have left an especially bitter after-taste to Americans who lost a loved one who died taking one of those cities, or to a survivor who came back without an arm or leg, or with other traumas to body or mind.
Surely we need to learn something from a tragedy of this magnitude.
Some say that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. Others say we should never have pulled our troops out when we did, leaving behind a weak and irresponsible government in charge.
At a minimum, Iraq should put an end to the notion of "nation-building," especially nation-building on the cheap, and to the glib and heady talk of "national greatness" interventionists who were prepared to put other people's lives on the line from the safety of their editorial offices.
Those who are ready to blame President George W. Bush for everything bad that has happened since he left office should at least acknowledge that he was a patriotic American president who did what he did for the good of the country — an assumption that we can no longer safely make about the current occupant of the White House.
If President Bush's gamble that we could create a thriving democracy in the Middle East — one of the least likely places for a democracy to thrive — had paid off, it could have been the beginning of a world-changing benefit to this generation and to generations yet unborn.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
There was NO chance that this region could ever become peaceful and civilized. Lives, time and money were wasted in the vain hope that bearded savages could become peaceful, kind, tolerant, civilized, cultured and democratic.
The lesson to the world is you cannot rely on the United States because eventually the Democrats will be in charge and stab you in the back.
MFLR
DING! DING! DING!
Sad but true.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3168297/posts
From the above link:
These mujahadeen are incapable of maintaining the weapons they already have. Weapons need upkeep. Weapons have to be oiled, cleaned, and upgraded. Upkeep interferes with raping, pillaging, and chopping off heads. Within two years, they will be slaughtering each other with scimitars and rusty AK-47s.
Iraq’s president, Maliki has asked for US assistance. Oh really?
“If President Bush’s gamble that we could create a thriving democracy in the Middle East — one of the least likely places for a democracy to thrive — had paid off, it could have been the beginning of a world-changing benefit to this generation and to generations yet unborn.”
Exactly.
That’s why you take bets like Iraq. If it had worked the payback would be effectively infinite. A good bet that doesn’t pay off doesn’t mean it was wrong to take. You just got unlucky.
At least in this case, “Unlucky” means 0bama squandered any chance of the bet paying off.
And now we know something: Arabs and Islam are not ready for Democracy for the next several generations. If we ever need be involved, just bomb the heck out of the stronger guy, and let them keep killing one another for a few generations. That ought to keep them busy.
The only way to deal with Islamic terrorism is through the credible threat of overwhelming retaliatory force.
Nuke something inconsequential to show that you’re willing to use them,
then tell them “Haji be good” or you lose mecca.
I wonder if anyone said that about Japan or Germany
“bitter after-taste” is a nice way of putting it.
Once again this morning I second your view.
I’m waiting for someone like Cruz to articulate a starkly simple foreign policy:
1) Our few close allies will know they are our allies, and we will know they are ours.
2) Any nation/motley terrorist group/any combination of the two that provokes us or our allies will feel our punch.
3) Any...blah blah...that attacks us will feel our might.
4) Any “ “ “ that seriously harms us, a la 9/ll, will effectively cease to exist. If it is a terrorist group, the host nation will be responsible for any collateral damage we are forced to cause.
5) No more welcome wagons, no more hand-holding, no more nation building, only the purest cleanest most obvious national self-interest. We will use force including troops sparingly but, once committed, fiercely, relentlessly and victoriously.
“If President Bush’s gamble that we could create a thriving democracy in the Middle East — one of the least likely places for a democracy to thrive — had paid off, it could have been the beginning of a world-changing benefit to this generation and to generations yet unborn.”
Admittedly haven’t read past the excerpt yet, but will later today.
Have to run right now as other projects call, but wanted to comment I never thought that Bush’s priority was to create a Democracy in Iraq, but only did so as we were there.
I always thought the priority was the location in the ME for our ability to heavily influence the region. I always thought had the Democrats, their media, and their RINO’s kept off his backside perhaps that influence would still be today.
I still think Iraq’s coordinates in the ME make it the perfect location for our interests in establishing such “influence”.
Yup!...previously known as the LeMay Doctrine!
(In hindsight it woulda worked in Viet Nam as well as in Iraq....)
President Bush should have resolved this dichotomy before the invasion. My preference would have been to tell the State Department that their objections are understood but we're not "nation building".
Perhaps if the Administration understood just how awfully thirty years of Saddam had destroyed the fabric of Iraqi society, they wouldn't have tried to unleash "instant democracy".
It's like that old saying that where social standards exist, laws are not needed. Where they don't exist, laws are ineffective. When people have been forced to lie, cheat and steal for decades just to stay alive, law and order cannot quickly return. Just as Pakistan and Iran have gone from modern societies to places where villagers gleefully stone women to death for being raped. That can't get flipped back overnight. You would need an entire generation to live in a society where good was rewarded and evil punished for decades before good became the norm and crime the exception. The post WWII occupations of Japan and Germany would look like cake walks in comparison.
There is a middle ground between "nation building" and "no ground troops": The ground troops accomplish the military objective and then GTFO. The only way that could have worked in Iraq would be to put an Iraqi strong man in place right away.
From a larger perspective, perhaps having British cartographers define country boundaries wasn't the way to go.
leave the “nation building” to God.
Some did.
So true.
Neither of them historically have followed religions that proselytize by the sword...
I’d say Japan came close though, Halsey made a comment to the effect of making Japanese only spoken in hell in the future if they kept up the fight.
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.