Skip to comments.Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy (a liberal's critique)
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 Obamas 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 countrys Sunnis toward revolt. Since Obama took office, Iraq watchersincluding those within his own administrationhave 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 Americas 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 administrations troop surge did not solve the countrys underlying divisions. But by retaking Sunni areas from insurgents, it gave Iraqs politicians the chance to forge a government inclusive enough to keep the country together. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
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?
Find five honest liberals. I dare you.
And then 0bammy walked away from the win.
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.
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.
Here’s the money quote:
As a former senior White House official told Peter Baker of The New York Times, We really didnt want to be there and [Maliki] really didnt 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.
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.
Iraq was a win? For who?
We should never have been there. There was no possible good ending.
Iraq was a win in 2008 for us and Iraqis.
Historical denial notwithstanding.
And probably too late, these brain dead lying leftists will realize that Maliki treated Sunni’s the same way Obama treated the Tea Party.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
oops..spotting should read spouting....
Bush won the war. Obama lost the peace. Has nothing to do with painting dogs or spittle.
They were related by the threat that Iran would move into the vacuum. It ain't all about progressivism.
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.
Given that it was global fuel prices that triggered the mortgage meltdown, no, it's not immaterial.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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 Americas 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 cant admit it about Obama. Sadly, some self-professed Conservatives cant admit that Bush screwed up.
Just did, but that was not the subject of your incorrect progressive talking point.
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.
Yes, that I agree with. They had more intentions then just removing Saddam, which is a shame.