Biden Was Right
Vice President Joe Biden was right. Let's begin with that.
Biden, back in 2006, was the leading proponent (together with Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations) of a scheme to divide Iraq into three largely autonomous states: a "Kurdistan" in the north, and a region each for the Sunnis and Shi'ites. This plan was, needless to say, not adopted. Instead, America bet on the political prowess of prime minister Nouri Al Maliki, who was going to form a "reconciliation" government which would give all three groups a share of governmental responsibility in a power-sharing coalition government. This, as it turns out, was a bad bet. If America had forced the Biden plan on Iraq back then, we might be in a radically different place than we find ourselves now.
Or maybe not. It is absolutely impossible to predict the future, especially in the Middle East. Nobody can really say what will happen (or what would have happened) with any degree of certainty. But it's pretty easy to see now that what may be next for Iraq is a de facto implementation of Biden's original plan. The violence which is happening now might have been largely avoided, if the division of Iraq had happened when America still had an overwhelming military presence in the country (say, back in 2006). The Sunni section might have had the time to build up its own governmental and security services, which might have precluded the militant takeover which is happening now. I realize that's a lot of "mights" and "maybes," but that's about as good as you can get in making Middle East predictions, as I mentioned. All you can definitively say is that the chances for a much better outcome would have been higher. Which is, in and of itself, enough to now say that Biden was right.
At the time, Biden's idea was scoffed at by many because it would "redraw the map" of a country we had expended a lot of lives and money to preserve (there were other complaints about the Biden-Gelb plan, too, but this was a big one). However, this ignores the reality of the last century in the Middle East. Roughly 100 years ago, due to the first World War, external "great powers" (mainly Britain and France) drew most of the current lines on today's map of the Middle East. They divvied up the region into countries, sometimes ignoring the reality of which ethnic and sectarian groups lived where. The lines were drawn, and the decrees were made: "this is where Iraq will begin and end." One of the biggest losers in this districting were the Kurds, who are spread in a region crossing the official lines of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. But the Brits decided not to create a "Kurdistan," so the Kurdish population got divided into multiple countries' territory.
The Kurdish region in Iraq is about the only real success story (such as it is) for America, as a result of our intervention. The Kurds gained a lot of autonomy (even under the Maliki government), they control a goodly portion of the oil reserves (providing them with a steady income), and they are the friendliest towards America after the war. America, alas, has had to hold them somewhat at arm's length. Kurds gaining control over their own governance in Iraq is fine and dandy, but America can't support any push for a larger piece of land for the emerging Kurdistan because one slice of that land would come from not just a staunch ally of America, but an actual NATO member: Turkey. Turks have been dealing with Kurds wanting to form a breakaway country for a long time, and Turkey is adamant about not ceding any territory for such an experiment. However, if the Kurds could be content with a portion of Iraq (and possibly Syria, which also seems ripe for redrawing some map lines), then Turkey would likely accept such an outcome.
Americans are mostly baffled by the concept of sectarian warfare between Sunni and Shi'a. "They're both Muslim, right?" we say, and scratch our heads in puzzlement. How can they be at each others throats when they both share the same basic religion? This, of course, ignores Western Europe's long history of bloody warfare between Catholics and Protestants, but then not many Americans adequately learn such history in school. Most Americans can't name which side in the current Middle East situation is Sunni and which is Shi'ite, but then most Americans can't now name which side was which in the Thirty Years' War, either.
American foreign policy is rather confusing in the Middle East, as we have never openly backed one sect over the other -- we've never proclaimed that "Sunnis are good, Shi'ites are bad" (or vice versa). This is probably wise, because there are extremists (as well as theocracies and dictators) to be found on both sides of the divide. The two worst examples of theocracy in today's Islamic world include both a staunch American ally and a staunch American enemy: Saudi Arabia and Iran. We decry "Islamism" for wanting to base legal systems on Sharia law, which would oppress women; but then we look the other way for a kingdom which doesn't even allow women to drive a car, because they are our allies.
Iran is Shi'ite, and the Saudis are Sunni, but that doesn't mean America always sides with the Sunnis. And it certainly doesn't mean all Sunnis are America's friends. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, after all. This is only the worst example of Sunni extremism, but by no means the only one or even the most relevant one in the current situation. The group called the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (or "ISIL" -- also variously called "ISIS," the "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria," or even the "Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria") which has taken over a large tract of Iraq is a Sunni organization as well. And then there's the dirty secret -- one seldom admitted in the discussion over American Middle Eastern foreign policy -- that wealthy Saudis and wealthy citizens of other Gulf states (Qatar, for instance) which are nominally American military allies secretly fund Sunni extremist groups to the tune of millions of dollars (perhaps even "hundreds of millions"). Meaning America's allies tolerate the funding of terrorist groups which attack America. This has been going on for a long time -- the Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia spent a lot of money creating madrasas (schools) throughout the Muslim world which essentially taught young men to hate who they were told to hate: all the perceived enemies of Wahhabism. Iran, on the other hand, is a Shi'ite state. They also fund terrorist organizations throughout the world -- just a little more openly than the Saudis do. Hezbollah is funded by Iran, for instance, but Hamas is funded by the Saudis. It's tough to keep track of which group is on which side, admittedly. America's basic rule of thumb has been, historically: our friends in the region are those who reliably sell us oil and buy our advanced weapons systems. Religious sectarianism doesn't really enter into that equation.
All of this confusion might lead to the conclusion that what the Islamic world needs is a political movement that could bridge the Sunni/Shi'a divide. Unfortunately for us, this is what existed before we invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government was, technically, non-sectarian. It was also a brutal dictatorship, but there are many such tyrannic governments in the region (some of which are our allies). Hussein cracked down on any and all religious movements, because he (quite rightly) saw them all as threats to his regime. The biggest lie that was sold to the American people in the run-up to the war was that Hussein was somehow in bed with Al Qaeda -- because Hussein would never have encouraged any sectarian movements, out of fears they would eventually topple him.
Instead, we toppled him. What we set up in Hussein's place was supposed to be a shining example for the rest of the region to follow: a secular democracy where power-sharing meant that everyone had a seat at the table, and all groups could live in peace with each other. What happened, instead, was we backed Maliki, a Shi'ite, who has consolidated power and has cracked down on Sunnis, including purging political opponents and shutting out Sunnis from the military and security forces. Iraq, under Maliki, has moved closer and closer politically to Iran. This is a big part of the reason why ISIL is succeeding, because many Iraqis are not very happy with the way things have been going under Maliki.
Which brings us back to the question of what to do now. ISIL has taken over vast swaths of Iraq, and they are one of the biggest fighting forces in Syria. President Obama has refused to ship high-tech arms to the Syrian rebels because of the fear they would fall into the hands of Islamic extremists and be used against us. Instead, the extremists crossed the now-meaningless border from Syria into Iraq, and took over huge stockpiles of high-tech weapons the United States left behind for the Iraqi security forces to use. Damned if we do, damned if we don't, in other words.
This is where we enter "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" territory. Our new goal is to fight ISIL's growing strength, in both Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately for us, this leaves us with some awfully strange bedfellows. In Syria, the Assad government is the primary opponent of ISIL, with the "good" rebels a lesser force who are opposed to both. We could back the good rebels to the hilt, but their main objective is fighting Assad's forces, not ISIL. Backing Assad isn't really an option for America at this point, but he's already got Russia as a major military ally, so this doesn't really limit his options in any way.
In Iraq, we have one major power that shares our common goal of crushing ISIL. Unfortunately, it is Iran. Iran has the capability and the will to put "boots on the ground" in Iraq -- which America does not (especially that part about "the will"). We have the ability to dominate the airspace, though, which would be less risky for American servicemembers than entering into another ground war. To do so effectively, we would almost have to coordinate with Iran's forces. As even uber-hawk Lindsey Graham recently pointed out, though, we fought alongside Stalin in World War II, so fighting alongside Iran to take back Iraq shouldn't seem all that strange.
An alliance with Iran -- even a temporary and limited alliance to achieve objectives only in Iraq -- would indeed be a strange thing to most Americans, though. But it might be our best option, from a list of possible actions that now spans the spectrum from "bad" to "unthinkably horrible." If America and Iran could somehow sweep ISIL out of Iraq and contain them within Syria, it would be a military victory. It also might lead to a further thawing of relations between Iran and the U.S., as both realize that, in certain times and in certain places, our objectives can overlap. This prospect is a terrifying one for our Sunni friends in the region, who have long worked to contain Iran's geopolitical strength. But they really shouldn't be able to have things both ways -- if they truly are our friends, then why do they turn a blind eye to their own support of America's terrorist enemies so often? It puts into perspective Iran's state support of terrorist groups, to a certain degree.
As I said, there are no good options in Iraq and Syria, and there never really were once the initial decision to invade Iraq was agreed upon by American politicians (of both parties, I might add). We have destabilized not only Iraq but the entire region by ousting Saddam's regime. Many American pundits and politicians are currently pointing the finger of blame all over the place, in an effort to explain who was more wrong about Iraq. This article is too short to even address all of this bickering, though. Instead, I decided to focus today not on who was wrong, but rather on one person who now seems to have had the right idea.
Dividing Iraq into three separate federated states might not have been a panacea. There still would have been political disagreements, and there may even have been a lot of violence from militias and car bombs and terrorists. But the plan to give the three big groups in Iraq their own government and their own territory at least had a chance of working out much better than the situation we now find ourselves in. At the time, proponents of the tripartite plan warned that if we didn't divide Iraq in three, then all we were doing was postponing an inevitable civil war within the country. These warnings now appear to have come true.
It may not have solved everything, but dividing Iraq up at least had the best chance for success. It might have allowed what is happening now to have happened in a more organized fashion, with a lot less violence and death. Or, to put it another way, Joe Biden was right.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
This is an excellent piece that I am sure will provoke a very sprited discussion here - the best place in the internets, I hasten to add, for such a discussion on such an important topic!
Some initial thoughts to start ...
I think we need to be clear about a few things and understand why Biden's plan was scoffed at by so many, mostly very disingenuously, to say the very least.
Biden's so-called 'Plan for Iraq' was problematic, first and foremost, because it implied that the US was trying to impose its will on a sovereign country and that was never Biden's intention.
Secondly, Biden's strategy for long-term US policy in Iraq was never about "carving up" Iraq into three countries as many wrongly believed. On the contrary, it was an effort to keep Iraq united through federalism and a devolution of power away from the central government and to the regions predominantly populated by Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites, respectively.
In essence, Biden's strategic vision was about the US promoting and facilitating a political process through which the Iraqis might resolve their differences peacefully and reach a workable politcal reconciliation with the support of the major and regional powers. It was also a gift to the Bush administration - a gift which was not only summarily dismissed but effectively and purposefully sabotaged. But, that is fodder for another day.
It is also important to point out that, while Leslie Gelb and Biden penned an op-ed together outlining the rough outlines of what US policy in Iraq should promote, it was Biden who took the reigns from there and carefully and meticulously developed the policy through many consultations with Kurdish, Sunni and Shi'a leaders in Iraq. Eventually, Biden introduced a Concurrent Sense of the Congress resolution articulating this Iraq policy which, by the way, passed the US Senate in September 2007 by an unprecedented and bipartisan margin of 75 to 23 votes.
In any event, I wonder if it is too late for Iraq to try to forge a new political compact that would satisfy all Iraqis - or too early, as Tom Friedman pointed out, as Iraq may first have to go through a bloody civil war before it can begin to put the last decade and more behind it and move forward in a positive way.
The beauty of what Biden was advocating was multi-fold. First, it protected the minority rights of Kurds and Sunnis, with particular emphasis on attracting Sunni buy-in to a new political arrangement for Iraq.
Secondly, it would allay the concerns of Turkey and others by keeping Iraqi Kurdistan firmly within Iraq but with substantial autonomy to run its own affairs.
Very importantly, it also proposed an equitable sharing of oil revenues among the three regions.
And, this strategy left open the possibility of Iraq's regions coming together to form a more cohesive national compact over time as trust developed amongst Iraq's various factions.
Senator Biden was the only person on the planet, by the way, who invested time and effort into ensuring that the wrongheaded US invasion of Iraq might ultimately have a positive outcome. That was his entire raison d'etre for entering the 2008 presidential race.
Not surprisingly, I'm having a hard time trying to figure out why he seems to have had, ultimately, so little positive impact on US policy in Iraq since becoming vice president. But, then again, he's not the president, and that's that.
Liz,
Excellent points. I've only one quibble, it was the equitable sharing of oil revenues that was most problematic, but equitable power sharing in governance wasn't that far behind. Equal shares of one third each wouldn't be fair because the Kurdish, Shi'a, and Sunni populations aren't equal and the resources aren't evenly distributed among their territories.
Our own experiment with federalism largely involved autonomous regions accepting centralized control over over matters that require interstate cooperation. But if dividing oil revenues means one or more regions basically supports another region they're far less likely to see equal power sharing equitable.
Ourr House and Senate structures are our solution to both providing all regions equal control AND allocating control based on population. Its a bizarre and counterintuitive solution that has somehow, until very recently, mostly worked. But clearly its worked because we wanted it to work.--And it just as clearly only works as long as we want it to work. Which is why as soon as Republicans decided they didn't want it to work our government became largely nonfunctional.
Its hard to see how you can impose a system like that on anyone and expect it to work. And we've never found a better way to address the problem.
So basically while Biden's plan was sound it really requires each region both wanting it and feeling secure enough to want it to work, because they trust each other enough to believe everyone will act in good faith to make it work. Those requisite conditions didn't and don't exist in Iraq.
LewDan,
Equitable sharing of the oil revenues wouldn't necessarily mean an equal sharing and would, of course, have to be worked out by the Iraqis themselves.
And, again, Biden was not advocating any sort of imposition of American-style democracy or federalism on Iraq but rather support for a process that Iraqis would control and be responsible for building consensus leading to a political settlement that would satisfy all Iraqis.
I take your point, though, that Iraqis must want a unified country that works out its political differences and that denies space for Islamic extremists and jihadists more than any outside entity wants it for them.
I don't know if its too late (or too early) for Iraq to move forward on political reconciliation or not.
I do know that there has been no serious effort over the course of the last eight years on the part of Iraq's new leadership to hammer out a political settlement or on the part of the US and the major and regional powers to secure and support that political process.
CW,
Where to begin? First, much of the middle east's difficulties are a direct result of western powers redrawing the map on a whim. The most recent spectacular example being our arbitrary redrawing the map to establish the State of Israel.
There's also the minor matter that we supposedly invaded Iraq under UN auspices in order to enforce a UN security resolution. If it was a war of aggression that we think entitles us to do with Iraq as we please, because we conquered it so its now ours, then WE were the ones in violation of international law.
And such naked aggression wouldn't be likely to endear us to ANYONE in the middle east, LEAST of all our putative allies. And, I might add, its our propensity for doing as we please, without regard for anyone else, that's the reason our middle eastern allies ALSO don't have a problem with supporting their own interests even if it might mean harm to us.
Its what WE'VE always done! And we've taught them too well.
The idea that we are somehow superior enough to Iraqis that we have either the right or the wisdom to dictate its government and composition is an arrogant self-delusion not supported by either the facts or our own history.
If we'd just stop viewing Iraqis, and all the rest of the middle east, as different from ourselves we might be able to see that they act and react the same as we do under similar circumstances. And that our smug supposed superiority is nothing more than our own lack of self-awareness manifesting as an arrogant expectation that others do as we say, not as we do.
Our innate hypocrisy, I can assure you, is lost on no one one the planet, other than us.
If We The People have a right to govern ourselves then so do Iraqis, and we've mo right to divide up their country for them and tell them how to govern themselves. If "government governs with the consent of the governed" then we've no tight to impose governments on anyone. If there are indeed "inalienable rights" then they obtain to all people, not just Americans but Iraqis as well, and we've no right invade their country and tell Iraqis how, or where, to live. If we believe in "no taxation without representation" then we've no right to seize and disburse Iraqi resources and revenues.
First we claim we're enforcing UN resolutions and only limiting WMD's. Then we're eliminating Saddam Hussein and later berating the Iraqi people. Now we're just one more conqueror, with a right to the soils of war, and to do with them however we see fit?!
And this highly evolved morally superior democratic enlightenment is what we're destined to spread throughout the planet? Because, personally, I think enough of its been spread already.--I can smell it from here!
Liz,
I agree. I guess what I was trying to say is that regions have to feel autonomous enough, self-sufficient enough, and secure enough to be able to afford the risk of sacrificing some of their power and autonomy to federalism.
I don't think you can install some form of federalism and THEN make each state feel autonomous and secure. There's no historical precedent that I know of for it, and human nature being what it is, I just don't see it working that way.
But the plan to give the three big groups in Iraq their own government and their own territory at least had a chance of working out much better than the situation we now find ourselves in.
Au contraire....
I could easily postulate a reasonable scenario where, if Biden's plan was implemented, Iraq would already be 10 years into a civil war... The problem with Biden's plan is the same problem with the Bush plan..
Those people have hated each other for centuries...
"Those who hate and fight must stop themselves, Doctor. Otherwise, it is not stopped."
-Spock, STAR TREK, Day Of The Dove
There simply is no imposed solution possible.
I am also constrained to point out that, as long as Hussein (Saddam, not our POTUS) was in charge there would have been absolutely NO WAY that Biden's plan would have been possible..
Even if Hussein (Saddam, not our POTUS) WASN'T in charge, but rather on the run, Biden's plan would have been doomed to failure..
That's the problem with "what if"s... Anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the issue, can play the game..
Moving onto Iran..
There is one huge glaring problem with an alliance with Iran..
A scant few months ago, Iran was fomenting the ISIL insurgency.. At least, according to the US State Department..
For the US to enter into an alliance with Iran over Iraq would stretch the credibility of US Foreign Policy way WAY past the breaking point..
It would cement the Obama Administration's comparison to Orwell's 1984 forever in the annals of history...
As I said, there are no good options in Iraq and Syria, and there never really were once the initial decision to invade Iraq was agreed upon by American politicians (of both parties, I might add).
Here, here....
That's the one point that many rank and file Weigantian's continue to ignore because of their Bush Derangement Syndrome..
The second Iraq War is as much the Democrat's war as it was Bush's war...
This is where we enter "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" territory.
In this case, the Klingon version is much more apropos...
q'OaStaHvuIS wa' ramn loSSSaD HoGh SIjlaHt qeItbogh loDD
which means:
"The enemy of my enemy is the enemy I kill last"
You are correct in that there are no good solutions right now..
The enemies of American interests have been emboldened by Obama's feckless and incompetent actions in the region..
The danger here is that once the ISIL consolidates it's hold on Iraq, Jordan is next on the Greatest Hits list...
Michale
Awww crap!!! :( CW, would ya mind??/
Michale
Don't worry, Michale,
It's very easy for us to see where CW's stuff ends and your stuff begins. No need for any editing here. :)
Carry on ...
The idea that we are somehow superior enough to Iraqis that we have either the right or the wisdom to dictate its government and composition is an arrogant self-delusion not supported by either the facts or our own history.
Yes.. HISTORY...
We have outgrown such uncivilized barbaric behavior..
Iraqis have not...
That makes us superior to them....
If We The People have a right to govern ourselves then so do Iraqis, and we've mo right to divide up their country for them and tell them how to govern themselves. If "government governs with the consent of the governed" then we've no tight to impose governments on anyone. If there are indeed "inalienable rights" then they obtain to all people, not just Americans but Iraqis as well, and we've no right invade their country and tell Iraqis how, or where, to live. If we believe in "no taxation without representation" then we've no right to seize and disburse Iraqi resources and revenues.
Using this argument, the US and Allied Nations should have let Hitler do what he wanted, as we had "no right" (according to you) to impose our will on Germany...
I'll give you this, LD. You are the king of slippery slope arguments.. :D
Michale
Don't worry, Michale,
It's very easy for us to see where CW's stuff ends and your stuff begins. No need for any editing here. :)
Ouch!!
"And the ref takes a point away!"
-Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR
:D
Michale
Vice President Joe Biden was right. Let's begin with that.
Senator Joe Biden MIGHT have been right..
His idea MIGHT have made things 20 times worse than they are right now..
That's the beauty of "what if"....
Michale
You want common sense solutions in Iraq and the entire region??
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/16/is-third-iraq-war-imminent/?intcmp=obnetwork
I challenge ANYONE to find fault with these solutions...
Besides it's coming from the Right, that is.. Coming from ya'all, that's a given...
Michale
Interesting...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2662272/This-similar-Nazi-occupation-Europe-says-Iraq-chief-ISIS-burn-cigarettes-Sharia-law-Britain-warned-militants-target-UK.html
The ISIL did something I actually whole-heartedly agree with!! :D
Who would have thunked it. :D
Michale
Michale,
If we had outgrown religious based bigotry, fear, hatred, and prejudice there'd be no such thing as "Christian conservatives," abortion wouldn't be a contentious issue, gay lifestyles wouldn't be contentious issues, Islamic Mosques wouldn't be contentious issues. Prayers before government session wouldn't be contentious issues, displays of the Ten Commandments in public spaces wouldn't be contentious issues, and wishing people a "merry Christmas" wouldn't be a contentious issue.
And, yes, our bigotry also flashes over into violence. Homosexuals are beaten, people presumed to be Islamic are beaten, abortion doctors are threatened and killed, and our very own, very much Christian, Klu Klux Klan assaulted and murdered for decades with impunity, and occasionally continues to do so, though no longer with impunity.
As I said, your arrogant assumption of superiority is not supported by either facts or history.
We may not be overtly engaged in mass violence ourselves, at the moment, but that could change at any time. Its why militias, and citizens are arming themselves since a black man some suspect to be a closet Muslim assumed the office of the Presidency.
You think bigotry is enlightenment when you agree with it. When you think its "justified." History teaches that bigots always think that they're justified, and very seldom ever are.
As for your absurd notions of WWII, when attacked people rightfully defended themselves, (which is why Iraqi insurgents resisting American aggression were not automatically terrorists,) the Allied Forces engaged in WWII to resist aggression, that's defending individual freedoms, defending inalienable rights, defending the concept that government governs with the consent of the governed. It is not incompatible with them.
I've no idea how, in your convoluted delusional view of the world, actually applying the governing principles we give lip service to, to others as well as ourselves, would supposedly prevent us, or anyone else, from defending themselves. If we'd actually been less hypocritical we'd have entered WWII sooner, instead of needing to be attacked ourselves before we really cared what was happening to anyone else.
The notion of partitioning Iraq (conceptually or politically) is fraught with complexity. Most nations can't be broken into compact homogenous boundaries based on ethnicity or religion, and Iraq is no exception.
Biden's 3 way plan is superficially similar to the administrative boundaries (eyalets) used by the late Ottoman Empire: northern Mosul, central Baghdad, and southern Basra, which covered a region somewhat larger than the modern boundaries of Iraq. Before that, the Turks administered a single eyalet of Baghdad roughly coinciding with modern Iraq and British mandate Mesopotamia.
Modern Iraq contains numerous ethnic groups, the largest being Arab (75%) followed by Kurds (17%), and Turkmen (3%. These bigger groups each partition into Sunni and Shiite components. Historically, there has been a lot of Sunni to Shiite conversion, especially over the last century.
It's hard to map these blocks satisfactorily, but I like the one at this link:
http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000916
Any compact three nation split is going to result in major ethnic/religious fault lines. Finer grained partitioning starts to look like the Balkans.
An additional complication is a significant Iraqi diaspora among the smallest indigenous minority groups.
If we had outgrown religious based bigotry, fear, hatred, and prejudice there'd be no such thing as "Christian conservatives," abortion wouldn't be a contentious issue, gay lifestyles wouldn't be contentious issues, Islamic Mosques wouldn't be contentious issues. Prayers before government session wouldn't be contentious issues, displays of the Ten Commandments in public spaces wouldn't be contentious issues, and wishing people a "merry Christmas" wouldn't be a contentious issue
Once again with the Straw Man arguments..
I never claimed that we have outgrown the bigotry.. I stated that, as a society, we have outgrown the barbarity associated with such bigotry....
In other words, we don't cut off people's hands, or heads, when they disagree with us...
And, yes, our bigotry also flashes over into violence. Homosexuals are beaten, people presumed to be Islamic are beaten, abortion doctors are threatened and killed, and our very own, very much Christian, Klu Klux Klan assaulted and murdered for decades with impunity, and occasionally continues to do so, though no longer with impunity.
Yes, and unicorns are also very prevelant.. :D
Do you have anything relevant to TODAY's American society??
No?? Didn't think so...
Can you provide ANY examples of the accusations that are less than a couple decades old??
No?? Didn't think so...
As I said, your arrogant assumption of superiority is not supported by either facts or history.
Considering you have absolutely NO RELEVANT facts to counter my conclusion, my conclusion stands..
We may not be overtly engaged in mass violence ourselves, at the moment, but that could change at any time. Its why militias, and citizens are arming themselves since a black man some suspect to be a closet Muslim assumed the office of the Presidency.
So, your "evidence" is 'that could change any time'....
Yea.. And aliens could land on earth at 'any time'...
You could actually have FACTS to back up your claims at 'any time'...
Doesn't mean I am gonna hold my breath 'any time' soon... :D
s for your absurd notions of WWII, when attacked people rightfully defended themselves, (which is why Iraqi insurgents resisting American aggression were not automatically terrorists,) the Allied Forces engaged in WWII to resist aggression, that's defending individual freedoms, defending inalienable rights, defending the concept that government governs with the consent of the governed. It is not incompatible with them.
Ahhhh So, on YOUR planet, Iraq never invaded Kuwait...
If we'd actually been less hypocritical we'd have entered WWII sooner,
So, you are saying that the Democrat POTUS at the time was a hypocrite??? :D
instead of needing to be attacked ourselves before we really cared what was happening to anyone else.
If you hate this country so much, why do you stay???
Michale
Its why militias, and citizens are arming themselves since a black man some suspect to be a closet Muslim assumed the office of the Presidency.
"When are you going to quit wearing the color of your skin like a suit of armor!?"
-ABM Missile Technician, MILLENNIUM
Michale
TheStig,
The notion of partitioning Iraq (conceptually or politically) is fraught with complexity.
The idea of 'partition' is an extremely loaded concept, especially with respect to the Arab world and particularly given what the idea means to India and Pakistan.
Of course, what Biden was advocating for US policy toward Iraq was emphatically not about partition. Those who understood it as partition or even 'soft partition' were misinterpreting Biden's strategy and they are, in large part, responsible for preventing it from taking shape.
Its why militias, and citizens are arming themselves since a black man some suspect to be a closet Muslim assumed the office of the Presidency.
I am still waiting for ANY facts that would indicate that Obama's being black has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING...
Michale
So what does the best practical end game for Iraq look like to the various bickering factions in Washington, and do we understand what's happening on the ground well enough to even define one?
I'm no fan of Maliki, but if we pressure him out, who do we pressure in that's going to improve the situation?
We aren't getting a lot of hard news about the fighting, we are getting a lot of propaganda from all sides.
ISIS has made some rapid gains, but it's been moving around Kurdish regions and through Sunni dominated ones. It looks to be lightly armed, it resembles the insurgent forces in Libya that drove quickly up the coastal roads westward until they met organized resistance from Khadafi regulars.
Some of the Iraqi army folded, but the underlying quality (and ethnicity) of these troops isn't clear, at least to me. The Iraqi military may well have some competent units that can stabilize the situation. I would hope so, given the effort and dollars the US expended to arm and train them. I just don't know, but maybe we ought to wait a bit before giving up on them. Or starting airstrikes. The Germans did pretty well in the summer of 1941.....lightning advances don't always pan out. I perceive genuine panic in the political classes, and panic doesn't bode well for decision making.
"My impression of Washington is a rush of clerks."...." 'Halt. You crazy bastards. SILENCE. You imitation ants. Now half of you get out of town and the other half of you don't move for one hour.' Then they could burn up all the papers and start fresh."
-General Stilwell's impression of Washington DC in December of 1941. Still good advice when facing a group panic attack.
TheStig,
So what does the best practical end game for Iraq look like to the various bickering factions in Washington, and do we understand what's happening on the ground well enough to even define one?
Who knows? And, yes!
Liz
I agree, Biden was talking about the partitioning of power within a federal system. But, a three part federal solution with a high degree of autonomy between the parts still leaves huge political fault lines that would likely result in a failed state or a breakup. Especially in a nation not used to power sharing.
The West doesn't seem to appreciate the complexity of Iraqi demographics.
TS,
So what does the best practical end game for Iraq look like....
The general consensus around here is that the Obama Administration is clueless as to the best course of action...
So, the ONLY logical response is to let Iraq take care of itself and take steps here at home to protect our national interests....
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/16/is-third-iraq-war-imminent/?intcmp=obnetwork
But those steps are ALSO anathema to the Left and it's agenda.....
And here we are...
Michale
Michale,
Maybe you haven't seen mass violence in America between groups with historic antipathy towards each other, but I have. And maybe you think the mere fact that the IRS list emails is de facto proof of a cover-up but the unprecedented unanimous defamation, denigration, and obstruction of this nations first elected black President by Republicans, without regard to ideology, beginning the day he was inaugurated, isn't any indication at all that his being black is a factor. But, then, your hypocrisy, intellectual dishonestly, and willful ignorance of both history and reality, is well established.
"Hate crimes" ARE taking place "today" in America. Your delusional insistence that America has outgrown all that, doesn't do it anymore, and is superior to anyone who still has those problems, is beyond mere willful ignorance and self-delusion, its well on the way to kind of pathological fanaticism that "justifies" terrorism. Which, I guess, is why you're just fine with kidnapping, torturing, and imprisoning people indefinitely without trial, on suspicion alone of their being "enemies."
And Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had NOTHING to do with our invasion of Iraq. Talk about "straw men!" That was an entirely different war! There was NOTHING "defensive" about invading Iraq. You're just, as usual, flat out lying.
And the whole gist of these comments is NOT that a third Iraq war is inevitable, its that the last Iraq war was a disaster and another one isn't likely to be any better.
Apparently I have to make this my mantra here, so I'll say it again.--If we want to stop terrorism we FIRST must stop being terrorists. That means that WE do NOT get to choose which side in civil wars should win. It also means we do NOT have a right to invade any country that maintains a government that we don't like, or that doesn't like us. And it means that we do NOT have a right to overthrow any government that doesn't do what we want or think that it should do.
I know that Biden wasn't advocating that, but its what our hawks on the right are, and have always advocated.--Because we haven't "outgrown" a thing, and aren't the least bit "superior" to anyone!
The idea you cite in your Fox News Op-ed, that the ONLY consideration that matters is "what's in America's interest" is the thinking of terrorists. We do NOT have a right to invade countries and start murdering people en mass just because we want oil, and don't wat to have to lay a lot for it!
THAT'S your idea of "superior" people who have "outgrown" "barbaric" behavior?--Because I'm thinking the word "barbaric" doesn't mean what you think it means!
Maybe you haven't seen mass violence in America between groups with historic antipathy towards each other, but I have.
For example........????
"Hate crimes" ARE taking place "today" in America.
We're not talking about "hate crimes"...
We're talking about your heretofore unproven insistence that Obama is opposed by Republicans because he is black..
Do you have ANY facts to back up your incessantly whiney claim??
And Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had NOTHING to do with our invasion of Iraq.
You claimed that Germany threatening it's neighbors was enough to justify the Allied response..
I merely pointed out that FACT that Iraq ALSO invaded it's neighbors..
I also pointed out when CW pointed out the FACT that your Democrats ALSO went along with the invasion of Iraq....
The 2nd Iraq War is as much a Democrat's War as it is a GOP's war..
A FACT that you refuse to acknowledge...
And the whole gist of these comments is NOT that a third Iraq war is inevitable, its that the last Iraq war was a disaster and another one isn't likely to be any better.
No one's claiming it is..
If you actually bothered to READ the article, you would have noted that it gave real and relevant ideas to how to mitigate the Iraq crisis...
But the problem is that the real and relevant solutions are totally opposed by the Left...
Which is typical of the Left..
ALWAYS part of the problem..
NEVER part of the solution...
If we want to stop terrorism we FIRST must stop being terrorists.
You have yet to provide ANY example of the US being terrorists...
Therefore your "mantra" is as useless and ignorant as the Straw Man arguments you create..
Because we haven't "outgrown" a thing, and aren't the least bit "superior" to anyone!
That's your opinion and I respect it..
But it's an opinion borne of complete ignorance and spoken by a person enslaved by bigotry and ideological slavery...
We do NOT have a right to invade countries and start murdering people en mass just because we want oil, and don't wat to have to lay a lot for it!
That's the entire point of the article..
Leave Iraq to the Iraqis....
Isn't that what YOU are advocating???
Michale
And maybe you think the mere fact that the IRS list emails is de facto proof of a cover-up
That's what the law says...
You know, the LAW that you claim to cherish when it goes along with your agenda..
Anyone who DOESN'T think there is a cover-up is either gullible to the max or has their head so far up Obama's ass they haven't seen the light of day in years..
Which are you???
Michale
Basically, the only response out of ya'all has been, "IT'S ALL BUSHES FAULT!!!", "IT'S ALL THE REPUBLICANS FAULT!!!" and "EVERYONE IS PICKING ON OBAMA BECAUSE HE IS BLACK!!"
It's downright embarrassing...
Do you have any PRACTICAL, USEFUL and POSSIBLE ideas on how to resolve this issue??
No???
Didna think so...
Michale
M- Re the McFarland link:
It's focusing on patient rehab when the focus should be triage. See 21.
It's focusing on patient rehab when the focus should be triage. See 21.
Listening to ya'all, it's pretty clear that ya'all think that Iraq should be left to the Iraqis..
OK... I may or may not agree with that..
But if that IS going to be the plan going forward, how can the US best survive such a plan..
McFarland's plan is the best plan going forward if we are to leave Iraq to the Iraqis...
If we are NOT going to leave Iraq to the Iraqis, if we ARE going to go back into the region with boots on the ground and other assets, fine...
McFarland's plan is not the way to go..
I just wish ya'all would make up ya'alls mind..
Either we go back into Iraq or we leave Iraq to the Iraqis...
Which is it??
Michale
Michale,
The police in Selma Alabama attacking black women and children with batons, dogs, and fire hoses, because they had the nerve to walk down a public street just as if they were as good as a white man, was viewed live on TV by myself and several million other Americans across the nation.--It did indeed happen. Its a fact. A well documented fact.
Trying to rationalize your "superiority" with the claim that you don't happen to be engaging in "barbaric" behavior right this instant has got to be the lamest example of self-delusion even you've come up with!
And the party that just happens to be composed primarily of old white men in and from states that "just happened" to have been confederate, "just happening" to treat the first President who "just happens to be black" the same way white southerners from states which supported the confederacy have treated black men for over century to prevent them from attaining, exercising, and maintaining political power, does NOT "just happen" to have happened with nothing to do with race. Racism is a far more logical and factually grounded inference than YOUR contention that the head of the IRS is partisan, lying to Congress, and covering up Presidential misconduct, simply because he was appointed by the President!--But, then, you don't do LOGIC, do you?
And I did read your cite. And she DID state that American foreign policy must be judged solely by what's in America's interests. Invading and murdering a nation, or any other means of "regime change," simply because someone else has something that you want is EXACTLY what barbarians did. THAT IS "barbaric behavior. "American interests" do not provide a right to even INTERFERE in Iraq's internal conflicts, much less justify it. The only interests that matter at the moment are the Iraqi peoples. And THEY appear to be not at all concerned by government losses.--That is, thr people LIVING in the areas the Iraqi government has lost don't appear to be very upset about it.
And the LAW Michale, actually only mandates that every reasonable effort to maintain emails be made. Unlike YOU, the rest of America recognizes that reality isn't defined by Congress. Accidental losses WILL happen, and they are NOT illegal.--Yet again, your highly selective, bigoted, and irrational "logic" is much in evidence. This country has lost atomic bombs, and I have to believe we were far more intent on keeping THEM than Lois Lerner's emails!
And since you're obviously still CLUELESS let me give you one final hint.--Solving Iraq's problems isn't OUR responsibility. Nor is it within our CAPABILITY.--If I were dealing with a rational thinking individual I'd assume that answers your question.--But since its YOU, Michale, I'm confident you'll simply refuse to hear it.
Michale,
While I'm pretty sure that YOU don't do things this way, MY idea of responding to events is to respond to events that actually happen, not paranoid fantasies.
I'm sure that there's plenty of contingency planning go on. But proposing possible responses to possible threats IS NOT deciding how to solve the problem.
Yet ANOTHER example of your partisanship and prejudice is your acceptance of irrational and unobtainable standards of what's expected of THIS President. Though no OTHER President, and CERTAINLY NOT THE REPUBLICANS, has EVER been able to meet them.
Iran and Iraq have been major problems since the Carter administration. Just what makes you think Democrats are supposed to come up with a solution for them now?!
The police in Selma Alabama attacking black women and children with batons, dogs, and fire hoses, because they had the nerve to walk down a public street just as if they were as good as a white man, was viewed live on TV by myself and several million other Americans across the nation.--It did indeed happen. Its a fact. A well documented fact.
In other words, you didn't really witness that, you just saw it on TV or read about it....
Do you have an RECENT or RELEVANT examples??
No???
Didn't think so...
nd since you're obviously still CLUELESS let me give you one final hint.--Solving Iraq's problems isn't OUR responsibility. Nor is it within our CAPABILITY.--If I were dealing with a rational thinking individual I'd assume that answers your question.--But since its YOU, Michale, I'm confident you'll simply refuse to hear it.
OK, great..
So you think that we should leave Iraq to the Iraqis and let them sort it out..
OK great..
Let's go with that. What do we do when oil spikes to $200 a barrel and beyond??
Maybe we should exploit our OWN domestic sources, eh???
What do we do when thousands of terrorists who have been trained in what used to be Iraq and Syria try to gain entry thru our southern border??
Well, maybe we should initiate immigration reform with an eye first and foremost, looking at border security...
You see my point??
You want to leave Iraq to the Iraqis, yet you completely IGNORE the consequences of those actions and refuse to take steps to address those consequences..
You are living in a dream world where everyone thinks exactly like you do...
Iran and Iraq have been major problems since the Carter administration. Just what makes you think Democrats are supposed to come up with a solution for them now?!
Oh I dunno.. BECAUSE THEY ARE IN CHARGE...
You prove my point perfectly..
You blame Republicans incessantly yet don't hold Democrats responsible for ANYTHING....
Michale
Michale,
Let me also add, with regard to the missing IRS emails, that you don't get to use Occam's Razor in support of the "missing 18 minutes" argument when you've had to spend 6 years, dozens of hearings, and hundreds of document requests for tens of thousands of documents before you finally discovered something that isn't available for review.
Under those circumstances the simplest explanation isn't a cover-up, its that you kept looking until you found an something you could use to cast further suspicion.
Under those circumstances the simplest explanation isn't a cover-up, its that you kept looking until you found an something you could use to cast further suspicion.
As I said...
Extremely gullible or in the bag..
I am pretty sure I got it figured out which one you are... :D
Michale
Michale,
We do what we've always done, deal with situations if and when they arise. You see MY point? Your paranoid fantasies are NOT a basis for murdering people wholesale. If the cost of oil spikes we do what we've ALWAYS done.-- We pay more for oil.
You are the one living in a delusional alternate reality.
Two Republican Presidents started wars with Iraq when THEY were in charge. NEITHER solved the problem of Iraq. One Republican President found it convenient to supply Iran with ARMS! So he could illegally SUPPORT TERRORISTS. HE certainly never solved the problem of EITHER Iran or Iraq.
But YOU choose to embrace the delusion that Republicans know how to solve Iraq. That Democrats are responsible for solving Iraq "BECAUSE THEY ARE IN CHARGE?!"
Democrats ARE NOT in charge of Iraq. Democrats aren't even in charge of America! They control ONE branch of the American government, and ONE HALF of another. And they are ONLY "in charge" of America.
If you weren't a willfully self-deluded idiot you'd understand that. But since you're now of the convenient opinion that events aren't real unless you're physically present to witness them, there's no worry. Since obviously nothing is happening in Iraq, as neither of us happens to currently be there!
Under those circumstances the simplest explanation isn't a cover-up, its that you kept looking until you found an something you could use to cast further suspicion.
The LAW (that you claim to cherish) says that Obama's White House is guilty....
Of course, since it goes against your Messiah, NOW you don't want to listen to the law...
Michale
CW,
I await your Lazarat Albania pot cloud commentary with baited breath!--As you say, the captions practically write themselves.
You have to ask yourself a question, LD...
If you are right, why is Obama's approval rating dropping like a lead ballon???
That wouldn't be happening if you were right and every one else was wrong..
But it WOULD be happening if I and everyone else is right and YOU are wrong...
Occam's Razor strikes again... :D
Michale
Michale,
The LAW requires both proof of intent and conviction in federal court before guilt is established. Under THE LAW Obama's Whitehouse isn't guilty of anything.
And, yes, I DO believe in the law. Perhaps because, unlike YOU, I actually understand it.
SURE Michale,
And the hundreds of right-wing talking heads defaming and disparaging Obama all across the nation, people like YOU, Michale, who claim that Obama is responsible for what the Iraqis do, that of course IRS testimony was perjured, (what American WOULDN'T perjur himself before Congress, and join a felony conspiracy for a temporary promotion if the boss asked him to?) a Republican Congress and media lying about Obama 24/7 and swearing Obama violates the Constitution everyday before breakfast, and twice on Sunday! NONE of that could POSSIBLY have ANYTHING to do with Obama's poll numbers. They are OBVIOUSLY a totally objective measure of the President's effectiveness.--And your "arguments" are A
STILL total bullshit.
Under Occam's Razor the SIMPLEST explanation is that six years of unrelenting national anti-Obama propaganda at a cost of BILLIONS, and a thirty percent "conservative" population with an irrational fear and hatred, more than explains poor poll numbers!
Michale,
Why does your every argument wind up being "I must be right because everyone on right-wing media (and THEY are the ONLY OBJECTIVE NONPARTISAN FACTUAL PROOF one could possibly have!) ALL agree with ME!"--I'm SURE that I MUST have mentioned to you before that your circular logic is only PROOF of your own self-delusion.
The LAW requires both proof of intent and conviction in federal court before guilt is established. Under THE LAW Obama's Whitehouse isn't guilty of anything.
Look up Spoliation Inference...
That is the law...
Under Occam's Razor the SIMPLEST explanation is that six years of unrelenting national anti-Obama propaganda at a cost of BILLIONS, and a thirty percent "conservative" population with an irrational fear and hatred, more than explains poor poll numbers!
Of course, on YOUR planet, that's what it means..
When Obama's poll numbers rise, it's because he is the most awesomest messiah in the universe..
When Obama's poll numbers sink, it's because of some vast Right Wing conspiracy... :D
Do you realize how utterly whacked you sound??
Michale
Michale
Lol, Nice try Meathead!
"Spoliation inference" applies to "finders of fact," ie juries, in federal trials. It can be used by juries to establish criminal intent.--YOU ain't no jury.--Like I said criminal intent and conviction in federal court are required to establish guilt. THAT is THE LAW!--Look it up!
LewDan: great series of posts.
It can be used by juries to establish criminal intent.
Exactly.
And, in this case, the House is acting as a jury to determine criminal intent of the IRS and the Obama White House.
A crime has been committed. This is fact.
Due to the Spoliation Inference, guilt has been established by the IRS destroying evidence... This is fact.
It's up to the IRS and the Obama White House to prove their innocence.
This is the law...
The law you CLAIM to cherish when it works for your messiah...
Michale
LewDan: great series of posts.
Another In-The-Bag'er heard from... :D
If this WERE a jury trial, ya'all would be disqualified from serving..
Think about THAT! :D
Michale
But, getting back to the subject of the commentary..
Is it ya'all's contention that Obama's best course of action should be to leave Iraq to the Iraqis??
A simple YES or NO is really all that is required....
Michale
Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile' - live
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10910868/Iraq-crisis-Obama-may-launch-air-strikes-without-Congress-amid-calls-for-Maliki-to-go-live.html
Wait a tic!
I am cornfused...
I thought Hussein (Saddam, not our POTUS) didn't HAVE any WMDs??
Now we see that Al Qaeda forces have SEIZED Hussein's (Saddam, not our POTUS) CWMD stockpiles...
Once again, the Hysterical Left is long on hysteria and BS, but short on facts..
Also, many of you are on record as stating that what is happening in Iraq is no threat to anyone else on the planet..
When CWMDs start popping off in neighborhoods near ya'all, we can revisit that question, eh??
Michale
U.S. Signals Iraq's Maliki Should Go
The White House Is Convinced the Shiite Leader Is Unable to Reconcile With the Nation's Sunni Minority and Stabilize a Volatile Political Landscape.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-signals-1403137521
So, let me see if I got this straight.
Ya'all demonize and castigate Bush for "regime change"...
But when Obama does the EXACT same thing..
Ya'all applaud him for it..
Many in Weigantia have been VERY vocal that it is not the US's place to determine leaders in other contries..
Yet, that is EXACTLY what the Obama Administration is doing. That is EXACTLY what the Obama Administration has done in Egypt and Libya..
Yet, no harsh words for the Obama Administration...
Funny how that is, eh?
Could the hypocrisy and bigotry be ANY more glaringly obvious???
Doubtful...
Michale
Re 50
Note the quote marks... and the CIA web page link. More reading, less writing? :-)
But when Obama does the EXACT same thing.
When did Obama invade anyone?
-David
You're on a roll, Michale! One lie after a other!
Republican Congressmen making wild allegations is not "the House acting as a jury." And the House doesn't have any authority to act as anything other than a Grand Jury. They can find "probable cause" but they cannot determine guilt. That's the job of the Senate.
And its so typical of you to cite an obvious lie to bolster your own obvious lies. The Telegraph piece said Saddam's chemical weapons facilities had been seized, NOT his chemical weapons. There are, and were, NO WMDs. He certainly had the capability to manufacture, and at one time he DID have WMDs. But NOT now. And not when Bush was lying about Saddam having them.
And, finally, its no secret to ANYONE that Maliki cannot reunite the Iraqi people after he's so obviously alienated the Shiites. But stating the obvious and publicly criticizing is NOT "regime change."--As you well know. The U.S. isn't forcing him out. The U.S. is simply making it known that we're not interested in propping him up.--And, yes, that IS a good thing.
And its one of the mistakes I'd hoped we might, this time, avoid. Working to topple a government is regime change. Criticizing one is called "free speech."
And its so typical of you to cite an obvious lie to bolster your own obvious lies. The Telegraph piece said Saddam's chemical weapons facilities had been seized, NOT his chemical weapons.
Again with the comprehension problem..
Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Once again, the FACTS belie your hysterical BS...
There are, and were, NO WMDs. He certainly had the capability to manufacture, and at one time he DID have WMDs. But NOT now. And not when Bush was lying about Saddam having them.
When Bush *AND DEMOCRATS* said he had them..
Did Hussein (Saddam, not our POTUS) use CWMDs on his enemies??
Yes he did.. Once again, the FACTS show you are full of shit..
Working to topple a government is regime change.
You mean, like Obama did in Egypt??
Like Obama did in Libya??
Once again, the FACTS show that you are ignorant of the region and the history..
The ONLY constant in all your hysterical rhetoric is that Obama is your messiah...
Michale
They can find "probable cause" but they cannot determine guilt. That's the job of the Senate.
Due to Spoliation Inference, guilt is already established.
This is the LAW...
"Mr. I-AM-THE LAW!!"
-Rob Schneider, JUDGE DREDD
:D
You claim to cherish the Law..
Except when your messiah breaks it in furtherance of an agenda that is PROVEN to be detrimental to this country...
Michale
Put another way..
The Obama Administration is on trial here..
You simply cannot be objective about the issue... Therefore your opinion has no relevance..
I, on the other hand, have proven that I *CAN* be objective.
I have credited Obama on numerous occasions for policy decisions I approve of..
You, on the other hand, have NEVER, NOT ONE SINGLE TIME, taken Obama to task for ANY policy decision, any mistake or any lie....
To hear you tell it, Obama is perfect and has never once lied or made a mistake..
Ergo, you would be disqualified from sitting in judgement of the Obama Administration's illegal activities...
Court's adjourned... :D
Michale
You simply cannot be objective about the issue... Therefore your opinion has no relevance..
Just to clarify so there is no misunderstanding..
I wasn't implying that your opinion has no relevance or value.. Your opinions, bigoted and uninformed though they may be, have as much value as any other opinion here in Weigantia..
I was merely postulating a scenario where we are in a Court Of Law situation here and you were being considered for Jury Duty...
Your obvious Obama Derangement Syndrome would disqualify you from serving on that jury..
But don't feel alone or singled out. There are only a few people here in Weigantia that WOULD qualify for Jury Duty in the case of The American People vs The Obama Administration.... :D
Michale
Under those circumstances the simplest explanation isn't a cover-up, its that you kept looking until you found an something you could use to cast further suspicion.
Yea... Nixon Administration officials said pretty much the same thing..
And we know how THAT turned out... :D
Michale
Articles Of Impeachment
“the president had caused in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.”
I'm just sayin'....
Lol, Michale, you think FOX News is "nonpartisan" and you think of yourself as "objective?" Because you "have credited Obama on numerous occasions for policy decisions you approve of..?!"
That's just TOO funny!
Once again, I don't think the word "objective" means what you think it means! You MIGHT have proven yourself to be "objective" if you'd ever credited Obama for policy decisions that you DIDN'T agree with. Such as Obamacare which is working nicely not the "train wreck" that you constantly proclaimed. But you won't do that. Because YOU are NOT "objective." "Objective" means evaluating on the basis of the FACTS, not on the basis of your preferences!
YOU are "prejudiced" not "objective" which is WHY you never credit, or recognize, anything you don't agree with.
Once again, I don't think the word "objective" means what you think it means!
As I said, in this context, your opinion (IE what you "think") is not really relevant..
I have PROVEN that I can be objective when it comes to Obama..
You have PROVEN you cannot be..
These are the facts..
Michale
In other words, I judge Obama on the basis of FACTS..
You judge Obama on the basis of he's your messiah....
Michale
Michale,
Obama is NOT on trial. You, yet again, demonstrate your prejudice and lack of objectivity by insisting on promoting the lie that Obama's "legally guilty."
The LAW is clear. The House is NOT Obama's jury. The Republicans are NOT The House. Obama is NOT on trial. There is NO evidence of either a crime or Obama's guilt. There is NO trial. There is NO jury. There has been NO conviction. No one is legally guilty of anything.
Now THAT would be an objective assessment. That would be in keeping with the LAW. Not the fantasies you keep spinning!
Further, one only has to look at the evolution of the White House's story to KNOW that something hinky is going on..
FIRST, it was a couple rogue IRS agents in Cincinnati..
THEN, it was a couple rogue agents in Cincinnati with some direction from Washington DC office..
THEN, it was the entire Cincinnati office with direction from Washington DC office..
THEN, it was the entire Cincinnati office ON ORDERS from Washington DC office.. But the White House didn't know about it.
THEN, the White House knew about it, but didn't co-ordinate anything..
THEN, White House attorneys knew about it and co-ordinated things..
THEN selective emails from more than a half dozen people COVERING TWO YEARS disappeared in a "computer crash"...
THEN the hard drives that held those emails were destroyed...
These are all well established FACTS...
And you HONESTLY can sit there with a straight face and say nothing hinky is going on...
You must live in a state that just legalized pot, because you got an unbelievable high going if you expect ANYONE to believe that all of this is completely above board without a tinge of corruption...
Liberals went positively apeshit over a segment of tape lasting 18 mins..
Selective emails covering a span of TWO FRAKING YEARS goes missing and you HONESTLY believe it's completely innocent..
Doood, you are really REALLY out there on this....
I don't think ANYONE with more than two brain cells to rub together would buy your claim that it's ALL innocent..
Hell, even The Wicked Witch Of The West, Hillary Clinton says it's a scandal and should be investigated further...
Yer alone in this one, dood... :D
Michale
No one is legally guilty of anything.
Yea...
Those defending Nixon said the EXACT same thing... :D
Michale
BTW, Michale, your contention that I'm u objective because I've supposedly never taken Obama to task, is yet another example of your prejudice and inability to be objective.
You start with the assumption that you are right. That Obama is guilty of SOMETHING, even if not everything. And you delude yourself that that concession is objectivity? And, therefore, is I don't agree with you then that proves I cannot be objective?
Again, that's known as "prejudice." You simply assume Obama's guilt, no factual support required. And you rationalize that anyone who doesn't agree with you is simply not objective, simply based on the fact that they don't agree with you.
Your total lack of self-awareness AND OBJECTIVITY prevents you from even seeing the arrogance, hubris, and PREJUDICE in claiming that someones "objectivity" depends on whether or not they agree with YOU!
“Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it is.”
-Ron Ziegler, Nixon Press Secretary regarding the Watergate break-in.
Isn't it hilarious that those who are defending Obama now sound EXACTLY like those who were defending Nixon then..
EXACTLY.....
It's hilarious.... :D
Michale
Michale,
And not ONE of those supposed facts constitutes a crime. The FACT is that Conservatives were not targeted for partisan reasons. The Tea Party was not targeted for partisan reasons. NO ONE had their Constitutional Rights violated. Groups were targeted because of their politics because they were claiming not to BE political, NOT because of what their politics WERE. The IRS violated PROCEDURE, NOT THE CONSTITUTION. Procedures instituted to, in a abundance of caution, avoid even the APPEARANCE of favoritism.
There is no evidence of a crime. RULES were broken, NOT laws. The IRS targeting was inappropriate, not illegal. You keep applying faulty logic, irrational inferences based on half-truths, and flat-out fabrications to convict, when all the FACTS indicate that there wasn't even any crime! And there'd hardly be a massive conspiracy to destroy evidence when there's no underlying crime. So there is no spoliation inference to be drawn from the loss of the emails!
Its your INSISTENCE on IGNORING any facts that don't lead where you want them to go that's at fault, not the Obama administration. If you were objective you'd see that there WASN'T anything "kinky" going on!--The fact that you have no evidence and EVERYONE must be computing together to deceive for your scenario to work should be a clue. Do to your prejudice you simply refuse to see the obvious.
The FACT is that Conservatives were not targeted for partisan reasons.
Bullshit...
You have NO EVIDENCE to make such a claim, save political bigotry..
If the groups were targeted because they were black, that would be crime, right???
So is targeting people because of their political ideology..
The IRS targeting was inappropriate, not illegal.
Up until now, you never admitted that there WAS any targeting...
Now you are changing your story...
If you were objective you'd see that there WASN'T anything "kinky" going on!--
"Hu huh...huh...uh...huh... He said 'kinky' "
:D
Michale
I remind you..
Nixon didn't commit any crime either..
Until it was discovered he did...
I know I am never going to convince you that Obama is dirty.. It's like trying to convince a fanatical christian that god doesn't exist...
No amount of facts or reality will change your mind...
But it's fun trying... :D
Michale
The Great IRS Lies...
1. "There is no targeting of conservative groups occurring."
LIE
2. "It's just a couple of Dilberts in a Cincinnati Office."
LIE
3. "Progressive groups were also audited."
LIE
4. "No one at the IRS in Washington DC knew what was going on."
LIE
5. "No one in the White House knew what was going on."
LIE
All of these are bona-fide lies that have been PROVEN by fact to be lies...
And yet, the American people are supposed to BELIEVE the Administration when they say "not a smidgen of corruption has occurred"
What complete and utter felgercarb....
This administration has told so many lies about so many different things, that ANYONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together would demand substantiation if the Obama Administration were to claim that the sky is blue and water is wet...
Michale
Let me put it to you this way, LD..
You have the IRS show up at your door saying they want to audit you.
You say, "Sorry. I had a computer crash 6 months ago. Your shit outta luck, Mr IRS Agent.."
How well do you think THAT will go over??? :D
Michale
Michale,
Even the IG, Russell George, who Conservatives claim is TOTALLY objective, since he broke the IRS "scandal" ADMITTED in July testimony before Congress that Progressive groups were ALSO targeted.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/irs-inspector-general-damage-control-russell-george-94447.html
YOU, of course insist on promoting the LIE that ONLY Conservatives were targeted. No crime. No cover-ups.
THOSE are the FACTS.
No amount of lying, misrepresentation, faulty logic, or false inference on your part changes that simple FACT!--Your refusal to accept any facts that you don't want to hear ALSO doesn't change the FACT that YOU ARE LYING!
The FACT that you HAVE NO EVIDENCE of ANY crime is, under NO circumstances, PROVE that there WAS a crime and that Obama was behind it! You are simply delusional. WILLFULLY delusional!
Michale,
You telling the IRS that you lost your records does not mean that the IRS can "infer" that you must be a tax cheat and owe them ten million dollars! The inability to produce legally required documents doesn't mean that you're legally guilty of anything anyone chooses to make up!
While I applaud your belated attempt at logic you STILL don't understand how it works!
THOSE are the FACTS.
No, that's someone's statement. A statement made almost a YEAR AGO that has NEVER BEEN SUBSTANTIATED...
Where are the FACTS to support such a claim??
Where are the progressive groups that were supposedly targeted?? We have heard from DOZENS of conservative groups that were targeted..
DOZENS...
NOT ONE SINGLE PROGRESSIVE GROUP has stepped forward...
Where are these alleged targeted Leftist groups??
NO WHERE TO BE FOUND..
They don't exist...
This guy can say he say pink unicorns with golden horns sticking out their asses...
Until he has PROOF, it's not a fact..
You got NOTHING in the way of facts that show progressive groups were targeted..
NO THING.. NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA....
No amount of lying, misrepresentation, faulty logic, or false inference on your part changes that simple FACT!--Your refusal to accept any facts that you don't want to hear ALSO doesn't change the FACT that YOU ARE LYING!
The FACT that you HAVE NO EVIDENCE of ANY crime is, under NO circumstances, PROVE that there WAS a crime and that Obama was behind it! You are simply delusional. WILLFULLY delusional!
You HAVE no facts..
You have ONE persons UNSUBSTANTIATED WORD..
On my side, I have DOZENS of sworn statements from DOZENS of conservative groups who have testified UNDER OATH as to the harassment and targeting they have endured from the IRS..
Do you have ANY such statements or testimony from progressive groups??
NOPE... NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA....
Come talk to me when you have FACTS...
Because, to date.. You haven't had jack...
Michale
As an aside to CW...
Thanx for the attribute fix in #7 :D
Michale
You telling the IRS that you lost your records does not mean that the IRS can "infer" that you must be a tax cheat and owe them ten million dollars!
Obviously, you have never dealt with the IRS..
Yes, the IRS *CAN* infer that.
And yes... The IRS *DOES* infer that..
If you lose or destroy evidence, that makes you guilty in the eyes of the IRS and the Law..
At THAT point, the onus is on YOU to prove your innocence..
Any attorney here or any CPA here will back me up on that...
The inability to produce legally required documents doesn't mean that you're legally guilty of anything anyone chooses to make up!
If it can be shown that you had evidence of the alleged crime and you, either by commission or omission, destroyed that evidence, then yes..
You are legally considered guilty and the burden to PROVE your innocence is on you..
That's the law, sunshine...
Again, any attorney here will tell you the exact same thing...
Michale
The Daily Telegraph released a map showing areas under ISIS control. (As CW.com regulars probably know, I'm crazy for maps).
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/Lightbox/published/259/images/THUMB.jpg
The part of Iraq said to be under ISIS control is a pretty close fit to the entire Sunni heartland in Iraq (shown in the map I linked in comment 16). My working theory is the power structure of the Sunni community invited ISIS in, and a true civil war is on, spearheaded by foreign ISIS fighters. I suspect a lot of other observers think that.
Obama has sent 300 Spartans to figure out how to hold the pass in Iraq. I just had to say that. Don't take the analogy too far, the Green Berets aren't expected to die to a man defending the pass.
I think one of their first tasks is on-the-ground assessment of what went wrong. The Green Berets know which Iraqis to talk to, and what questions to ask. From that, which triage scenario seems most likely?
I. There is nothing the US is willing to commit that will prevent Iraq from disintegrating.
II. There is a reasonable chance that US help, short of US soldiers in ground combat, will allow the Iraqi army to defeat the invasion/rebellion and reconstitute a unified, functional Iraq.
III. The Iraqi government is capable enough to defeat the invasion/rebellion with no aid past what is already committed.
The part of Iraq said to be under ISIS control is a pretty close fit to the entire Sunni heartland in Iraq (shown in the map I linked in comment 16). My working theory is the power structure of the Sunni community invited ISIS in, and a true civil war is on, spearheaded by foreign ISIS fighters. I suspect a lot of other observers think that.
Logical...
Obama has sent 300 Spartans to figure out how to hold the pass in Iraq. I just had to say that.
Love it!!! :D
I just watched RISE OF AN EMPIRE the other day... Awesome flick... :D
II and II are simply not within the realm of possibility..
Number 1 is the most likely scenario to occur..
There is NO WAY in hell Obama can muster or direct national will... Over 65% of Americans think that Obama is a Foreign Policy disaster...
Iraq is going to burn...
It's that simple...
I saids it before and I'll says it again...
Obama is going to go down in history as the President that destroyed the Middle East....
Michale
TS,
What's your take on the silence from the Left over Obama actually putting boots on the ground??
Michale
Michale,
There were 20 applications from Progressive groups. There were over 200 from Conservative groups.--Guess what?! Conservatives have been complaining about the IRS FOR YEARS! They've ALSO been complaining about Obama since the day he won election. The fact that Conservatives complained about "Obama's" IRS only proves that the sun is still likely to rise in the East. It definitely doesn't prove Obama is guilty of a crime!
Your CHOOSING to believe George when he says only Conservatives were targeted and then claiming there's no proof Progressives were targeted just because the new head of the IRS and the IRS IG say so, is NUTS!!
Conservatives complaining doesn't PROVE ANYTHING! I'm done arguing this with a close-minded idiot determined lie in spite of ANYTHING I say or present.
You aren't even REMOTELY interested in facts. You're only interested in slamming Obama. YOUR so-called "facts" are nothing but right-wing OPINION. You claim that nothing IS a fact if it doesn't incriminate Obama. And anything that DOES incriminate Obama MUST be a fact.--Fine. Entertain yourself with your prejudices. I've got better things to do.
"Boots on the ground" means frontline combat troops, not military advisors. We had advisors in Vietnam for a decade before we committed "boots on the ground."
Of course the Right, and Michale, will now misrepresent the term to claim that Obama lied. Just as Michael insists on the fantasy that Obama will go down in history as the President who destroyed Iraq, not Obama's predecessor who destroyed Iraqs government and military before Obama ever assumed office.
Lying is all that can ever be expected of Michale when it comes to Obama.
"Boots on the ground" means frontline combat troops, not military advisors.
Of course it does... When you have a Dem Messiah as POTUS...
With a GOP POTUS???
Something totally different..
Also keep in mind that Vietnam started with just a few hundred advisers on the ground..
I am further constrained to point out that the "advisers" that Obama is putting on the ground are Special Forces Operators. Delta, Green Beret, etc etc...
Combat troops by ANY stretch of the definition..
Lying is all that can ever be expected of Michale when it comes to Obama.
Just like racist brown nosing and ass kissing is all that can be expected of you when it comes to Obama..
Works both ways, little buddy... :D
Michale
I've got better things to do.
Apparently, you don't :D
Michale
Obama's approval ratings have just dropped .4 points to 42.0....
The American People have just issued a NO CONFIDENCE declaration regarding the Obama Administration...
Michale
And do you know why the American People have issued a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE regarding the Obama Administration??
1. Air Force One flyover in Manhattan
"It was a mistake, as was -- as was stated. It was something we found out about along with all of you and it will not happen again."
-President Obama
2. Fast & Furious Scandal
"The president did not know about this tactic until he heard about it through the media; the attorney general did not know about it."
-Jay Carney
3. DOJ obtaining AP phone records
"Yesterday. Let me just be clear. We don’t have any independent knowledge of that. He found out about the news reports yesterday on the road."
-Jay Carney
4. HealthCare.gov failing
"While we knew that there would be some glitches and actually said publicly that we expected some problems, we did not know until the problems manifested themselves after the launch that they would be as significant as they have turned out to be."
5. IRS targeting scandal
"Well, let me take the IRS situation first. I first learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this. I think it was on Friday."
6. VA waiting list scandal
"You mean the specific allegations that I think were reported first by your news network out of Phoenix, I believe. We learned about them through the reports. I will double check if that is not the case. But that is when we learned about them and that is when I understand Secretary Shinseki learned about them, and he immediately took the action that he has taken."
-Jay Carney
7. NSA spying on foreign leaders
"I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the I.G. report before the I.G. report had been leaked through press -- through the press."
-President Obama
8. Russia's intervention in Ukraine
The Obama Administration was caught completely flat-footed by Russia's foray into Ukraine..
9. The Rise Of The ISIL
Obama Administration caught off guard regarding the ISIS gains in Iraq.
The portrait of an incompetent administration..
Completely and utterly clueless and incompetent...
Michale
Court renews NSA phone program
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/210121-nsa-program-renewed-while-congress-debates-reform
No red lines???
Amazing...
Simply amazing....
Michale
M-80 (heh, heh, writing that brings back memories of youthful fireworks mayhem).
"II and II are simply not within the realm of possibility..
Number 1 is the most likely scenario to occur.."
I don't count out either scenarios II or III. Shiite Iran holds a lot of cards, including a willingness to put their boots on the ground and critical lines of communication from Syria, which I suspect is from whence ISIS came. The ISIS force is fairly small, and strung out far from home. They are likely bumping up against some real resistance as they get closer to regions with large Shiite populations (and Shiite militia). So, even if we worst case assume US military and diplomatic impotence, Iran alone can bump the situation to scenario III. The United States government might be content with that.
But, the US does have some useful diplomatic clout.
With the Saudis, who are bankrolling ISIS and providing it with religious legitimacy. ISIS is behaving barbarically, and may wear out it's welcome in Sunni regions fairly quickly. The Sunni regions might be willing to reintegrate just to get rid of them, with prejudice. Who better to broker the process than the USA? That is a situation II.
As ISIS forces run into effective Shiite resistance, and especially if Iran gets actively involved the war is likely to drag on, encouraging the Kurdish north to declare independence. The US can provide economic incentives to stay put, and sweeten the deal by brokering more Kurdish federal power in a United Iraq. Again, that is a form of scenario II.
The calculus is complicated and Machiavellian. There are a lot of downside risks. They don't call the region Mess o' Potamia for nothing! I expect the US is going to be very cautious, play for time and leave plenty of options open. This would be reasonable. I strongly suspect the problem is being gamed at the Pentagon and State Dept. as we speak.
M - 81
For the most part, the public, left right, center just doesn't view special forces as boots on the ground. Special forces are special. Force size is small, they can get in and out of a region quickly. They function partly as long range scouts, diplomats, teachers, couriers, bag men, spotters and if need be,commandos. They leave few footprints. Most of public sees this as glamorous, the stuff of Hollywood, with low downside risk.
Go figure, it is what it is.
M-80 (heh, heh, writing that brings back memories of youthful fireworks mayhem).
:D Reminds me of the time we were driving around in New Jersey throwing lit firecrackers out the car... I held onto one a little too long... :D
" Imagine a firecracker in the palm of your hand. You set it off, what happens? You burn your hand, right? You close your fist around the same firecracker and set it off??
Your wife's gonna be opening your ketchup bottles the rest of your life.
-Dr Ronald Quincy (Pretty much the smartest man on the planet. You might want to listen to him.) ARMAGEDDON
:D
But, the US does have some useful diplomatic clout.
I disagree...
The US's "clout" in the region, diplomatic or otherwise, has pretty much evaporated..
ESPECIALLY with Saudi. Obama's re-approachment with Iran totally poisoned the well of Saudi/US relations...
As ISIS forces run into effective Shiite resistance,
This assumes that the ISIL forces DO run into "effective Shiite resistance"..
I see no evidence to date that this is likely to occur..
When a force of 600,000 drops their weapons and run when approached by a force of 20,000.....
Well, there ain't much chance that the 20K force is going to meet ANY resistance.. Effective or otherwise..
For the most part, the public, left right, center just doesn't view special forces as boots on the ground.
Actually, you are incorrect..
The Left *DOES* view special forces as "boots on the ground"...
When the POTUS is a Republican, that is...
There is ample evidence to support such a conclusion..
They leave few footprints.
But, as boots on the ground are inclined to do, they DO leave footprints... :D
Basically, as we have seen in practice just in this commentary alone, the Left can delude themselves into thinking that there really aren't any new boots on the ground, when in fact this is not the case...
There ARE new boots on the ground..
You have to wonder what the Magic Number is for the Left to concede that there are, in fact, boots on the ground in Iraq...
"How many people does it take before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many people DOES IT TAKE, admiral?"
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK IX Insurrection
And, keep in mind.. Vietnam started with "just a few hundred advisers. Not really "boots on the ground"..
Michale
The US/Saudi relationship is full of tension, but when you have military bases in a country, equip and train their air force, educate their elite and are otherwise entangled, you have diplomatic clout...and vice versa.
The Iraqi army may number 600 K, but it's not clear how many ran, and from what units. It's not clear what the correlation of forces was in the areas over run. ISIS had more like 3,000 fighters, but when you factor in local Sunni militias that joined in, who knows? That's the sort of fact finding the Green Berets, and others, are going to do.
The fact that the cities under ISIS control are ALL in the Sunni heartland of Iraq and nowhere else in Iraq suggests a lot about local levels of militia resistance elsewhere, but there is a huge amount of fog in this war.
"Boots on the ground" has always meant combat troops assigned to the front. It not only doesn't apply to advisors it doesn't even apply to combat troops who are NOT on the front. The entire purpose of the term is to identify troops who are on the front actively engaging in combat. ANY troops are subject to find themselves in combat. "Boots on the ground" refers to troops specifically tasked to engage in it.
You're always throwing out specious lies Michale. Where's your proof "boots on the ground" has EVER simply meant "military forces?" You're always claiming others have no proof, while YOU just lie with impunity.--So where's your evidence?!
Basically, there are only 2 possibilities in Iraq..
Obama will have to commit American assets....
OR
Obama will have to cede Iraq to Iran...
I think even Obama has realized that "Lead From Behind" (AKA The Coward Of The Country) is not a military strategy but rather an abdication of leadership.. AND a complete and utter failure..
Whoever convinced Obama that "Lead From Behind" is a viable military option is obviously COMPLETELY and UTTERLY ignorant of ANYTHING military and should be summarily shot...
Michale
If we didn't want the majority of Iranians aligning with Iran we should have left Saddam Hussein alone. The only idiots who COULDN'T see invading Iraq would give Iran influence over it was the Bush administration.--Your ongoing effort to rewrite history so that Obama, and Democrats, take the blame for the things that Bush, and Republicans, did, notwithstanding, Michale.
Ruling Iraq is not in the President of the United States' job description.
OK. THAT idiotic substitution [95] was all on me. "If we didn't want the majority of Iranians aligning..." should read "if we didn't want the majority of Iraqis aligning..."
The only idiots who COULDN'T see invading Iraq would give Iran influence over it was the Bush administration.
AND the Democrats of the time...
A simple fact that you constantly overlook.... :D
Michale
The one point that you always (want to) forget is that DEMOCRATS are as much to blame for the second Iraq war as Bush is...
But don't worry.. I'll always be around to remind you of the facts :D
Michale
Where are the oil fields in Iraq?
http://www.energy-pedia.com/news/iraq/vast-exploration-provides-update-on-qara-dagh-1-well-in-kurdistan
Who controls what parts of Iraq? I'm not sure anybody knows for sure, but:
http://www.ibtimes.com/iraq-crisis-whos-control-what-map-shows-cities-under-isis-government-or-kurdish-forces-1607100
Back referencing to comment 99 (one link per comment)ISIS doesn't appear to have broken into the really important oil fields. The big fields are not in the Sunni dominated parts of Iraq where ISIS fighters seem to drive about with impunity. Very important oil fields are in the Kurdish north.
Just a few more piece in the big puzzle of "what the hell is really going on in Iraq and what if anything can/should the US do about it."
TS,
What you seem to be saying is that the Iraqi army doesn't have any incentive to defend Iraq proper but that they MAY be motivated to defend the oil fields..
While you may be right, one must remember that, for the line troops, the grunts on the ground, the ones that are currently cutting and running the oil fields really hold LESS incentive than their homes and their families..
Michale
What I'm saying is that Kurdish forces control the big northern oil fields, and Shiite Iraqis control the big fields in the Shiite dominated regions around Basra.
ISIS controls some smaller oil field, and a pipeline to Turkey, they may control a pipeline to Syria. Neither Syria nor Turkey are friendly to ISIS. Kurds control a pipeline to Iran, also unfriendly to ISIS and the Shiite government can pipe their oil out to the gulf.
So, if the current situation stalemates, which looks likely, which among the three fragments looks to have a viable oil export economy, and which doesn't? To put it another way, which fragment can be contained?
Just another couple of pieces of the emerging puzzle.
I don't think preserving the status quo is going to work for the Democrat's political ambitions..
The administration is going to have to be seen doing SOMETHING in the region. The upcoming mid-term election is going to demand action on the part of the Democrats..
The only question is what will Obama and the Democrats do and if it will work or not..
If it (whatever "it" is) is seen to be working, the Obama might save the Senate for the Democratic Party...
If it doesn't work, if it blows up in Obama's face, as so many of his foreign policy antics has, then Democrats will be lucky to be voted in as county dog catcher....
Michale
AAA: Iraq Civil War Pushing Up Gas Prices in US
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/06/23/aaa-iraq-civil-war-pushing-up-gas-prices-in-us/
This is why Democrats cannot just sit back and let things unfold...
Rightly or not, the incumbent Party is SAVAGED at the polls over high gas prices..
The American people blamed Bush for the high prices during his administration and the American people will blame Obama when they go to the polls this November...
Obama and the Democrats simply HAVE to be seen doing SOMETHING..
But, as I mentioned above, the risk is that, whatever Democrats do, it might make things worse...
Michale
The belief that you "have to be seen doing something," even if it makes things worse, is what always gets us in trouble.
Its an irresponsible view. A DANGEROUS view. A view that puts personal gain above duty to the country. Its what Republicans are currently displaying in their rush to try to pin blame on Obama for what's happening in Iraq.
Going into a country to kill people so you can save money on gas is terrorism. We're always quick to condemn others as terrorists when they use deadly force against innocents to promote their own agenda, while simultaneously hypocritically contending that WE have a right to do ANYTHING to "defend our national interests." Kidnapping, torture, indefinite detention, mass murder, assassination, ANYTHING!
We've ALREADY murdered over 100,000 Iraqis trying to save money on gas. And Conservatives can't wait to do it again! There's no terrorist organization on the planet that even comes close to America's record of terrorism and support for terrorism.
The biggest current threat to our security is Conservatives. They constantly prove their willingness to imperil America for personal political gain. They consistently promote terrorism abroad creating enemies of America and endangering Americans.
Their sublime sense of entitlement and superiority, and supreme indifference to the rights of others endangers everyone, both at home and abroad.
NO ONE has ANY right to kill people in order to save money! NO ONE has ANY right to kill people to win votes! NO ONE who believes that they DO has any rights at all. Not even the right to exist! THAT'S what endangers our security. That's why others resort to terrorism. If we're going to insist on behaving like rabid animals, then everyone else will have a right to try to put us down.--Any way they can.
Mr. Military Counterterrorism Expert is too partisan and bigoted to have a clue about fighting terrorism. He's far more interested in promoting it.
The New York Times reports on the "Western Assessment"
(vaguely sourced) of the Iraqi Army.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/world/middleeast/iraqs-military-seen-as-unlikely-to-turn-the-tide.html?_r=0
"about a quarter of Iraq’s military forces are “combat ineffective,” its air force is minuscule, morale among troops is low and its leadership suffers from widespread corruption."
Sounds credible, but except for the miniscule AF bit, that's been "situation normal" for decades. The Iraqi military has never been very highly regarded by outside observers (except for one shining and illusory period just before the first Gulf War).
It looks to me like the most reliable and effective forces on the Shiite side are going to be their militias, backs to the wall, fighting to retain their own homes. I predict the ISIS advance is pretty much played out. ISIS and its allied fighters are a small force, and they are getting stretched very thin.
Iraq is now functionally divided along sectarian lines. Iran will back the Shiites, with supplies, training and ground forces if needed. The Iranian mullahs don't want a competing caliphate, if you get my drift. Plus, there are holy Shiite (no pun intended) religious shrines that must be protected from ISIS desecration. Iran has a lot of motivation and a lot of viable options for direct and effective military intervention. The US does not.
Still, the Iranians are stretched thin too. I think they'll be content to stabilize the Shiite regions of the country formally known as Iraq, but not willing to take on the task of reconquering the Sunni heartland.
All in all, the chances of putting the Iraqi Humpty Dumpty together again are looking pretty grim, short term, long term, any term you like. I see the most likely future with at least one failed state emerging, a sort of brigand Sunni Somalia, a theocratic, militant, theme park. There will be a refugee problem.
Final thought, we broke, we bought it, now we have to live with it.
The belief that you "have to be seen doing something," even if it makes things worse, is what always gets us in trouble.
It ain't MY belief... :D
Its what Republicans are currently displaying in their rush to try to pin blame on Obama for what's happening in Iraq.
Oh that "blame" is already well pinned...
NO ONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together can blame Bush for this Obama cock-up...
Going into a country to kill people so you can save money on gas is terrorism.
Hmmmmm I don't recall that definition in my years in the field...
Must have been absent that day...
:D
The biggest current threat to our security is Conservatives.
Hmmmmmmm Let's put that statement to the BIGOT test...
The biggest current threat to our security is Black People
Yep... It's a bigoted statement all right.. :D
NO ONE has ANY right to kill people in order to save money! NO ONE has ANY right to kill people to win votes! NO ONE who believes that they DO has any rights at all. Not even the right to exist! THAT'S what endangers our security. That's why others resort to terrorism.
So, you ARE confirming that, in your opinion, Obama is a terrorist..
Gotcha... :D
Michale
Plus, there are holy Shiite (no pun intended)
Intended or not, THAT was funny as hell!!! :D
Final thought, we broke, we bought it, now we have to live with it.
Actually, we broke it, we fixed it, Democrats broke it again...
It's there problem now...
That's how the American people see it..
Michale
LD,
The problem with your anti-America rants is that they completely ignore the FACT that it is YOUR messiah who is in charge..
So, when you are ranting against America's action, you are ranting AGAINST Obama, the Messiah...
Michale
http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1385275/zirah-moslem-jihadist-t-shirt-yours-13-facebook.jpg?w=720&h=509&l=50&t=40
What every good anti-America Liberal/Progressive/Democrat is wearing...
Sign up to get yours now!!! :D
Michale