So, when Obama and his retinue of progressive fools say the only thing that can ‘fix’ Iraq is the formation of an ‘inclusive’ western styled democracy isn't he basically contradicting his opposition to the Iraq war and declaring Bush right? Does he think respect for liberty, a free conscience and democracy just springs up magically in Muslim polities when very clearly it does not? If there’s a political path forward in Iraq it’s because Bush invaded and created the opportunity - you can't both damn that invasion and cheer on the benefits of it and remain credible - you cannot claim what Bush did both the cause of the problem and the solution and remain credible - you cannot claim that Iraq would have been better off if Bush had left Saddam alone and at the same time talk as if Muslim polities and Islamism in general are naturally inclined towards ‘inclusiveness’.
Liberals flat out make zero sense when talking about Iraq and the Mideast in general. I’m not gonna defend the mistakes Bush made but there’s a significant difference between saying the invasion was a mistake and saying the occupation was flawed - and if liberals are now gonna maintain that the only thing that can save Iraq is ‘inclusive’ Western styled governance then they are flat out contradicting themselves viz Bush - or declaring their belief that the world is run by magical fairies and wise and kindly left leaning wizards who live in the clouds.
But of course regardless of the hypocritical idiocy of liberals all this talk of ‘inclusiveness’ is pointless - ISIS controls Sunni Iraq and it ain’t giving it up even if Iraqi Sunnis in some general sense can be convinced to trust in Shiite dominated governance again.
So what’s Obama up to with his air strikes? He’s wrapped the op in ‘humanitarian’ terms of course because he does not see American power in strategic terms even though if he had we would never have left Iraq and therefore there'd be no humanitarian crisis - but aside from that, what’s Dear Leader up to, assuming he indeed has a clue of some sort? The air strikes are clearly too limited to be about some overarching strategy of ‘defeating’ ISIS and no sane person would ever imagine Obama agreeing to something like that anyway - so it ain’t that. Could be a holding tactic designed to contain ISIS while the Kurds are armed - but that would mean Obama unilaterally creating an independent and militarized Kurdish state because the amount of military upgrade required here to deal with ISIS is huge - which means arming the Kurds would also require a significant US military presence in this new Kurdish state to train, oversee, help with command and control and force protect - he may surprise, but I really don't see Obama agreeing to something like that - that would be completely out of character for him.
Leaves one with three options: this is just a one off humanitarian effort, which would I think be even too stupid and ill advised for Obama - although can't rule it out; Obama believes that limited air power can contain ISIS and that will be good enough - thoroughly misguided if that’s the case; it is about ‘containment’ but in order to buy time for the rise of ‘inclusive’ governance in Baghdad - as said though even if that is possible, which I highly doubt, it’s too late - ISIS is powerful and committed to its cause and has acquired significant military hardware left behind by the fleeing Iraq army - on top of that they've demonstrated a solid understanding of military tactics in general and as others have pointed out of Maoist insurgency theory specifically - which means they ain't going away quietly and therefore pushing Maliki aside in the name of a greater respect for Western styled ‘inclusiveness’ is pointless even if such a thing is feasible which as said I rather doubt.
Only conclusion I can draw from all this then is that once again Obama is demonstrating that when it comes to foreign policy he is utterly clueless - all of his instincts are wrong, all his sympathies misguided or delusional. Guess we just sit around now and wait for ISIS to take over Baghdad or for Iran to move into southern Iraq and create a new Islamist Shiite state - and if that happens Obama can wave goodbye to any putative nuke deal or rapprochement with Iran he might be dreaming about.
Liberals flat out make zero sense when talking about Iraq and the Mideast in general. I’m not gonna defend the mistakes Bush made but there’s a significant difference between saying the invasion was a mistake and saying the occupation was flawed - and if liberals are now gonna maintain that the only thing that can save Iraq is ‘inclusive’ Western styled governance then they are flat out contradicting themselves viz Bush - or declaring their belief that the world is run by magical fairies and wise and kindly left leaning wizards who live in the clouds.
But of course regardless of the hypocritical idiocy of liberals all this talk of ‘inclusiveness’ is pointless - ISIS controls Sunni Iraq and it ain’t giving it up even if Iraqi Sunnis in some general sense can be convinced to trust in Shiite dominated governance again.
So what’s Obama up to with his air strikes? He’s wrapped the op in ‘humanitarian’ terms of course because he does not see American power in strategic terms even though if he had we would never have left Iraq and therefore there'd be no humanitarian crisis - but aside from that, what’s Dear Leader up to, assuming he indeed has a clue of some sort? The air strikes are clearly too limited to be about some overarching strategy of ‘defeating’ ISIS and no sane person would ever imagine Obama agreeing to something like that anyway - so it ain’t that. Could be a holding tactic designed to contain ISIS while the Kurds are armed - but that would mean Obama unilaterally creating an independent and militarized Kurdish state because the amount of military upgrade required here to deal with ISIS is huge - which means arming the Kurds would also require a significant US military presence in this new Kurdish state to train, oversee, help with command and control and force protect - he may surprise, but I really don't see Obama agreeing to something like that - that would be completely out of character for him.
Leaves one with three options: this is just a one off humanitarian effort, which would I think be even too stupid and ill advised for Obama - although can't rule it out; Obama believes that limited air power can contain ISIS and that will be good enough - thoroughly misguided if that’s the case; it is about ‘containment’ but in order to buy time for the rise of ‘inclusive’ governance in Baghdad - as said though even if that is possible, which I highly doubt, it’s too late - ISIS is powerful and committed to its cause and has acquired significant military hardware left behind by the fleeing Iraq army - on top of that they've demonstrated a solid understanding of military tactics in general and as others have pointed out of Maoist insurgency theory specifically - which means they ain't going away quietly and therefore pushing Maliki aside in the name of a greater respect for Western styled ‘inclusiveness’ is pointless even if such a thing is feasible which as said I rather doubt.
Only conclusion I can draw from all this then is that once again Obama is demonstrating that when it comes to foreign policy he is utterly clueless - all of his instincts are wrong, all his sympathies misguided or delusional. Guess we just sit around now and wait for ISIS to take over Baghdad or for Iran to move into southern Iraq and create a new Islamist Shiite state - and if that happens Obama can wave goodbye to any putative nuke deal or rapprochement with Iran he might be dreaming about.
