Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy (a liberal's critique)
The Atlantic ^ | June 23, 2014 | By Peter Beinart

Posted on 06/24/2014 9:10:17 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee

Yes, the Iraq War was a disaster of historic proportions. Yes, seeing its architects return to prime time to smugly slam President Obama while taking no responsibility for their own, far greater, failures is infuriating.

But sooner or later, honest liberals will have to admit that Obama’s Iraq policy has been a disaster. Since the president took office, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has grown ever more tyrannical and ever more sectarian, driving his country’s Sunnis toward revolt. Since Obama took office, Iraq watchers—including those within his own administration—have warned that unless the United States pushed hard for inclusive government, the country would slide back into civil war. Yet the White House has been so eager to put Iraq in America’s rearview mirror that, publicly at least, it has given Maliki an almost-free pass. Until now, when it may be too late.

Obama inherited an Iraq where better security had created an opportunity for better government. The Bush administration’s troop “surge” did not solve the country’s underlying divisions. But by retaking Sunni areas from insurgents, it gave Iraq’s politicians the chance to forge a government inclusive enough to keep the country together. . .

(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 06/24/2014 9:10:17 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

Remind me, hadn’t we won in Iraq under Bush and we were handing over victory to Hussein’s regime? Then the Regime threw it away?


2 posted on 06/24/2014 9:14:37 AM PDT by WilliamRobert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
But sooner or later, honest liberals will have to admit that Obama’s Iraq policy has been a disaster.

Find five honest liberals. I dare you.

3 posted on 06/24/2014 9:20:04 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
"Obama inherited an Iraq where better security had created an opportunity for better government."

And then 0bammy walked away from the win.

4 posted on 06/24/2014 9:23:38 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Radicalized via the Internet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee
Had Iraq remained stable, grown prosperous, and expanded its experiment in democracy, the Bush Administration would have ultimately been vindicated. Consciously or unconsciously Obama sabotaged U.S. relations with Iraq in hopes it would descend back into chaos. Obama was following a liberal tradition begun 35 years earlier.

After Nixon got rid of the draft, started an all-volunteer Army and Vietnamized the war, even Henry Kissinger doubted the South Vietnamese could prevail. But the ARVN slugged it out toe to toe with the North Vietnamese, beating back two major invasions. The liberals couldn't stand the possibility of Nixon being right. So in 1975 a cabal of traitors led by George McGovern, Teddy Kennedy and fellow travelers in the House, cut off all funds to the RVN and prohibited the U.S. military from lending air or naval support.

Hanoi couldn't believe the gift Congress had handed them. Within months the Soviet-supplied North Vietnamese had blasted their way to victory.

5 posted on 06/24/2014 9:52:17 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

Well, for the good of our country, let’s make sure he’s “all out” if he tries for another term as Speaker.

Gohmert, Hensarling, or some other conservative needs to take Suntan Johnny on.


6 posted on 06/24/2014 10:00:25 AM PDT by SharpRightTurn (White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Here’s the money quote:
As a former senior White House official told Peter Baker of The New York Times, “We really didn’t want to be there and [Maliki] really didn’t want us there.… [Y]ou had a president who was going to be running for re-election, and getting out of Iraq was going to be a big statement.”

So Obama condemned Iraq to chaos for selfish poltical ends.
But, we all knew that already. Dimly encouraging, I guess, that a putz like Beinart finally figured it out.


7 posted on 06/24/2014 10:14:26 AM PDT by pluvmantelo (Democrats:the party of moral hazard, the IRS, the NSA and the heckler's veto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamRobert

Well, I suppose Bush could come out and defend himself but he’s busy wiping the spittle from his chin and painting portraits of dogs.


8 posted on 06/24/2014 10:22:43 AM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority everhil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Iraq was a win? For who?

We should never have been there. There was no possible good ending.


9 posted on 06/24/2014 10:22:51 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sakic

Iraq was a win in 2008 for us and Iraqis.

Historical denial notwithstanding.


10 posted on 06/24/2014 10:44:48 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Radicalized via the Internet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

And probably too late, these brain dead lying leftists will realize that Maliki treated Sunni’s the same way Obama treated the Tea Party.


11 posted on 06/24/2014 10:45:03 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sakic
There was no possible good ending.

Saddam and his sons being killed was the good ending. Country should have been split into three after that. Was going to happen in the long run anyway. The US learned a painful lesson that Arabs and Persians do not mix well.

12 posted on 06/24/2014 10:47:44 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

You imply that there are rational, sane liberals that would make such an admission. They can’t be reasoned with because there’s no reason in them.


13 posted on 06/24/2014 11:04:46 AM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Saddam and his sons being killed was the good ending.

In terms of blood and treasure, 4,500 men and three trillion dollars worth? That's what it will have cost by the time we're done caring for wounded warriors for an entire lifetime.

14 posted on 06/24/2014 11:19:41 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (ObamaCare IS Medicaid: They'll pull a sheet over your head and send you the bill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

Really.

Getting Saddam and sons was worth all of the dead and maimed Americans?

I will go out on a limb and guess nobody close to you paid the price. If I am wrong, your opinion is even more pathetic.


15 posted on 06/24/2014 11:51:25 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

This is the best Summer I’ve had since I was a kid! The Democrats are stumbling around like a bunch of drunks trying to play hopscotch.


16 posted on 06/24/2014 11:51:56 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sakic
Getting Saddam and sons was worth all of the dead and maimed Americans?

Very few Americans died getting Saddam. We smashed the Iraq forces within a week. Almost all the deaths occurred during the insurgency years later which had nothing at all to do with removing Saddam and his sons. Why are you spotting progressive talking points here ?

17 posted on 06/24/2014 6:21:47 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

oops..spotting should read spouting....


18 posted on 06/24/2014 6:22:30 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WilliamRobert

Bush won the war. Obama lost the peace. Has nothing to do with painting dogs or spittle.


19 posted on 06/24/2014 6:24:42 PM PDT by Chgogal (Obama "hung the SEALs out to dry, basically exposed them like a set of dog balls..." CMH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
See my response above. Freerepublic is typically above progressive canards. Again, why does the MSM continue to equate deaths during the insurgency with deaths removing Saddam and his sons ? They were two separate operations not even related. Did not even agree with trying to nation build so I view those deaths as a great tragic loss that was unnecessary. We need to run operations like the Israelis run them. In and out.
20 posted on 06/24/2014 6:27:34 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
They were two separate operations not even related.

They were related by the threat that Iran would move into the vacuum. It ain't all about progressivism.

21 posted on 06/24/2014 6:58:23 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (ObamaCare IS Medicaid: They'll pull a sheet over your head and send you the bill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

And it is not always about state governments. Religion and ethnicity was the key. Always has been in the middle east. The Shiites already had the south and more then half of Baghdad. Whether it would have been a proxy for Iran or a province of Iran or a completely independent state next to Iran is immaterial. The people themselves would have decided.


22 posted on 06/24/2014 7:05:46 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
Whether it would have been a proxy for Iran or a province of Iran or a completely independent state next to Iran is immaterial.

Given that it was global fuel prices that triggered the mortgage meltdown, no, it's not immaterial.

23 posted on 06/24/2014 7:17:46 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (ObamaCare IS Medicaid: They'll pull a sheet over your head and send you the bill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
So the insurgency in Iraq from Iran and Syria caused the US mortgage crisis ? Will need a bit more explanation before that becomes clear.

Bottom line is the idiotic US state department (John Kerry) just asked the Kurd's to shed blood to keep Iraq together. Is he doing that for the US dollar ? US gold reserves ? Oil ? Heck the Kurd's are pumping like crazy and are effectively defending Kurdistan. Why rock the boat ?

24 posted on 06/24/2014 7:52:41 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
So the insurgency in Iraq from Iran and Syria caused the US mortgage crisis ?

Learn how to read.

Is he doing that for the US dollar ? US gold reserves ? Oil ?

When George Bush declared his intent to invade Iraq, it was within days of Saddam declaring his intent to trade his oil in Euros. You decide what the loss of reserve currency status would mean to the United States in the race to retain the power to print money without consequence.

25 posted on 06/24/2014 8:22:56 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (ObamaCare IS Medicaid: They'll pull a sheet over your head and send you the bill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
So you were comparing how one US problem caused by overseas trouble, could mean that other overseas trouble may also cause a US problem ?

it was within days of Saddam declaring his intent to trade his oil in Euros.

He was also trying to organize an Oil Embargo. About all he could really do as a defiant gesture, seeing that we had a no fly zone enforced over large sections of his country. He did attack the Kurd's though while under the no fly zone. But that was a domestic issue for the farce of a nation called Iraq.

26 posted on 06/24/2014 8:51:36 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

Very few Americans died as a result of going after Saddam because they died in the days, weeks, months, and years after Saddam was dead? Solid reasoning.

If the goal was to knock off Saddam and sons, they should have assassinated him and been done with it.

Wanting to prevent the needless deaths and maimings of America’s kids is now a progressive talking point?

Bush screwed up and Obama continues to screw up.

Stupid libs can’t admit it about Obama. Sadly, some self-professed Conservatives can’t admit that Bush screwed up.


27 posted on 06/25/2014 3:33:14 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sakic
If the goal was to knock off Saddam and sons, they should have assassinated him and been done with it.

They tried assassination in Syria. It failed numerous times. Assad is still there and is now helping Iraq by flying air missions on ISIS.

Wanting to prevent the needless deaths and maimings of America’s kids is now a progressive talking point?

Nope. Linking removing Saddam with the deaths that occurred over many years of an insurgency, while we hopelessly tried to save the jigsaw puzzle Iraqi nation, is a progressive talking point. Has been for about 7 years. Removing Saddam and Sons costs very few US life's.

Bush screwed up and Obama continues to screw up.

He definitely should not have tried to keep the Iraq nation together, if he was not going to act like Saddam. Perhaps he felt introducing democracy to the Islamists in the region was worth the gamble. Did not agree with that myself and I pulled my support for him during his last two years, but his removal of Saddam was a grand success. Superb military invasion plan.

Obama has done the worse things possible. Every progressive always does. Like clockwork.

Stupid libs can’t admit it about Obama. Sadly, some self-professed Conservatives can’t admit that Bush screwed up.

Just did, but that was not the subject of your incorrect progressive talking point.

28 posted on 06/25/2014 10:03:28 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

If the goal was truly to remove Saddam, they could have gotten out in a hurry. Instead, they stayed.

As a result, tens of thousands of American families have been mortally wounded. Their intentions may have been good, but the results for us is abysmal.


29 posted on 06/26/2014 9:44:43 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sakic

Yes, that I agree with. They had more intentions then just removing Saddam, which is a shame.


30 posted on 06/27/2014 12:24:17 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson