Inter – mission? Oh, nonsense. You know, the first mission was totally accomplished. Our president at the time told us so. We were treated as liberators. Freedom and democracy were on the March. Terrorism was in its last throes. And it was glorious. Glorious.-No, this is a totally new problem, totally unrelated to what went on before. And the great thing is that it’s, you know, all Obama’s fault.-And, if we all just hate Obama enough, the problem will just go away. Just like every other problem.
It would be at least Act III, and that’s just since ’91, ignoring our interference to first create Iraq after WW I, install Faisal as king, then double-cross him, which seems U.S. strategy, just like with Ho after WW II…
Here’s an article that addresses some of the President’s most critical missteps:-http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380810/disaster-his-own-making-charles-krauthammer-And here’s another article that discusses these points in further detail:-www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/why-obama-owns-iraq.php-There are other areas where the President’s missteps have had consequences (which are now being imposed upon the Iraqi people) but these articles should give you a general sense of the opposing point of view on this matter.
“Unless we, as a nation, were willing to lose thousands of lives every year to keep the cauldron from boiling over, this was going to happen.”Footnote: Look up the British & Ottoman experiences over the last seven centuries with maintaining order in the region. They only maintained order at the cost of significant casualties.
You believe that Obama could not have reached a compromise with Maliki, and excuse him from any responsibility on the theory that such compromise was impossible. The problem with this is that the second article I linked to notes (1) that President Obama made a compromise unnecessarily difficult, and (2) the Bush administration frequently and successfully influenced the Maliki administration to moderate its policies and to work with US forces. This sort of behind-the-scenes influence is particularly important in a region where a leader needs or wants an independent public image.-Your “defense” of Obama is therefore more of an admission that he is less capable in foreign affairs than George W. Bush.
braindead Premium Member over 9 years ago
Inter – mission? Oh, nonsense. You know, the first mission was totally accomplished. Our president at the time told us so. We were treated as liberators. Freedom and democracy were on the March. Terrorism was in its last throes. And it was glorious. Glorious.-No, this is a totally new problem, totally unrelated to what went on before. And the great thing is that it’s, you know, all Obama’s fault.-And, if we all just hate Obama enough, the problem will just go away. Just like every other problem.
GrazyLlamas over 9 years ago
Bis! BIs! Encore! Encore!
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
It would be at least Act III, and that’s just since ’91, ignoring our interference to first create Iraq after WW I, install Faisal as king, then double-cross him, which seems U.S. strategy, just like with Ho after WW II…
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
Here’s an article that addresses some of the President’s most critical missteps:-http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380810/disaster-his-own-making-charles-krauthammer-And here’s another article that discusses these points in further detail:-www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/why-obama-owns-iraq.php-There are other areas where the President’s missteps have had consequences (which are now being imposed upon the Iraqi people) but these articles should give you a general sense of the opposing point of view on this matter.
Uncle Joe Premium Member over 9 years ago
“Unless we, as a nation, were willing to lose thousands of lives every year to keep the cauldron from boiling over, this was going to happen.”Footnote: Look up the British & Ottoman experiences over the last seven centuries with maintaining order in the region. They only maintained order at the cost of significant casualties.
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
You believe that Obama could not have reached a compromise with Maliki, and excuse him from any responsibility on the theory that such compromise was impossible. The problem with this is that the second article I linked to notes (1) that President Obama made a compromise unnecessarily difficult, and (2) the Bush administration frequently and successfully influenced the Maliki administration to moderate its policies and to work with US forces. This sort of behind-the-scenes influence is particularly important in a region where a leader needs or wants an independent public image.-Your “defense” of Obama is therefore more of an admission that he is less capable in foreign affairs than George W. Bush.