Skip to comments.Fareed Zakaria: Who Lost Iraq? The Iraqis Did, With An Assist From George W. Bush ( Lapdog Speaks)
Posted on 06/12/2014 9:48:38 PM PDT by Steelfish
Fareed Zakaria: Who lost Iraq? The Iraqis did, with an assist from George W. Bush
June 12 at 8:27 PM It is becoming increasingly likely that Iraq has reached a turning point. The forces hostile to the government have grown stronger, better equipped and more organized. And having now secured arms, ammunition and hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from their takeover of Mosul Iraqs second-largest city they will build on these strengths. Inevitably, in Washington, the question has surfaced: Who lost Iraq?
Whenever the United States has asked this question as it did with China in the 1950s or Vietnam in the 1970s the most important point to remember is: The local rulers did. The Chinese nationalists and the South Vietnamese government were corrupt, inefficient and weak, unable to be inclusive and unwilling to fight with the dedication of their opponents. The same story is true of Iraq, only much more so. The first answer to the question is: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lost Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We’ll see what the voters think in November. I think the author will be hugely dissappointed.
Is Dubya in Iraq?
I know Al Queda is in Iraq...but the news is kind of squishy on that. So Dubya deserted his post in Mosul, under fire and hit the road, because he fail to negotiate a military agreement during the Obama Administration? He did take up Sec of State so he could do that right? He was that before Clinton and Kerry, after all.
He has been the most active past president...and I thought it was jimmy carter fixing all those other countries.
The pundits are saying that Syria is the main cause of this disruption. I have had the impression that a lot of the right, other than McCain, don’t favor robust intervention in Syria any more than the left. Meanwhile any news on the Turkish consulate takeover? That should certainly annoy the Turks, and with what possible actions/consequences?
I seem to remember that when we withdrew we said we’d be right next door if you need us...
Obama could send in the marines any time if he wanted to. I think that what is happening is what is supposed to happen; they war-gamed it and it is proceeding according to plan.
the sippering little muz squeeks
A W hater then and still a W hater now
go back to whatever little 3rd rathole you hail from Farid
Couldn't have anything to do with your special little confidant, Barry Hussein, could it?
The Al Qaeda rebels of ISIS in Iraq, are allied with (if not the same) Jihadists in Syria that Obama was arming and supplying and equipping to overthrow Assad.
Obama is helping to assist the Jihadists to create a global caliphate.
Obama supports the Sunni brand of Jihadist Islam - so it should be interesting to see what he does (if anything at all) once Iran decides to get involved.
Why do we allow these people in, much less give them television shows?
What a scum bag.
Am surprised the pundits do not realize what and whom they are supporting. Maybe the pundits do know and the money being paid them (graft) is too high to open their minds and eyes to the danger. All alligators, of this nature, eat massive amounts of innocents. The pundits are feeding the alligators thinking they will be the last ones eaten. Not smart thinking on the part of the pundits.
A bit of news at this link, Gleeaikin.
Of course Obama was taking a lot of credit 2 years ago saying Al Queda is almost finished and Iraq is one of the administration’s best outcomes
But Obama said Al queda was on the run and Iraq was stable!!!!
Too late to blame Bush as Obama sent Biden to manage the exit!!
Obama took credit for the victory he claimed in 2011. As of that point, Obama owns Iraq; whatever happened after that is his.
Bush Admin accomplished mission in Iraq, and Obama gave it back to the enemy, simple as that...now who is the terrorist?
I’m no defender of Obama, but I would like to better understand the Bush strategy. Eventually we would have to leave there, be it under Obama, McCain, Romney, or Clinton.
It’s clear now that Iraqis have no stomach to take on ISIS...so should we simply have stayed and been pin-pricked for decades?
The basic issue in Iraq today is that the guy who was most effective at dealing with insurgent groups like ISIS was Saddam Hussein, not George W. Bush.
“The basic issue in Iraq today is that the guy who was most effective at dealing with insurgent groups like ISIS was Saddam Hussein, not George W. Bush.”
For sure...but he also was serious about building up WMDs. In fact, he’d be alive and in power, except for those WMDs.
The problem was, I think, that we, for some crazy reason, thought he could be replaced with a functioning democracy. We needed to install his clone...or even re-install him, after taking the country and making sure it was clean WMD-wise.
We seemed to understand that during the Cold War. Ferdinand Marcos may have been a bastard when he ran the Philippines, but he was OUR BASTARD. But now we forget and seem to go back to a Jimmy Carter viewpoint...if the person isn’t perfect (like the Shah), then dump him and who cares what comes next.
Any national leader with half a brain is "serious about building up WMDs." As time goes on they become essential to a country's survival.
It is premature to say Iraq is lost. What is in process is change.
The government established after the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist’s may lose some parts but retain others. That is, the artificial accretion of territory by the British into the nation of Iraq is separating into the natural divisions of religious, tribal and maybe ethnic lines. These are the northern Kurdish region, the central Suni region and the southern Shia region
The Iraq being lost is actually just a map drawn by British and French diplomats when carving up the Ottaman Empire in say 1918 after WW I. The reassemblage of territories, this change, may also include parts of what is now Syria where similar map drawing resulted in French Syria.
In my mind, what America does or doesn’t do is largely irrelevant now. The decisions will be made by others in the region. Especially interested are Turkey, the Gulf States and Egypt with Jordan thrown in as an aside.
“Any national leader with half a brain is “serious about building up WMDs.” As time goes on they become essential to a country’s survival.”
Probably so, but Saddam was in a bad situation, given what he agreed to after Gulf War 1. That’s why Basher was able to do what he did without any problems.
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.