HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It's fine to have sympath...

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:08 AM

 

It's fine to have sympathy for President Obama in Iraq

Last edited Fri Jun 20, 2014, 06:39 PM - Edit history (3)


. . . but it's not a sentiment that I'd extend to judgment of his actions right now.

The reason that he's finding himself in the position of responding with military assistance has everything to do with the way he neglected to repudiate several of the Bushian justifications for remaining militarily engaged in Iraq.

One is his insistence that there's some sort of terror war to defend the U.S. against that threatens to spring out of Iraq and attack the U.S. or our “national security” interests. I'm straining to remember where, in the decade we've been meddling militarily in Iraq, did any Iraqis come to the U.S. and attempt to attack us?

It's a ludicrous excuse for insisting that he has a military prerogative in Iraq, and its ignorant of the fact that our military presence and activity in Iraq actually fuels and fosters terrorists. It's right there in Bush's 2006 National Intelligence Report.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April 2006, was the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by U.S. intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and it represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, "Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement," cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

If you just take Pres. Obama's recent decision to send 300 U.S. military advisers to assist Iraqis in directing attacks against Iraqi targets, you can see the folly rising, yet again, where our military interference is just going to be a recruiting tool for whatever forces are resisting that Potemkin of democracy in Baghdad. The predictable effect will be the U.S. ownership, in Iraqis eyes, of any objectionable assault we had a hand in which kills innocent Iraqis.

The other thing the President has done is put the introduction of the military forces assisting the Iraqi army into operation well before there's even a promise from the Iraqi government we're defending to effect the political reconciliation that Bush first demanded and then completely let go.

The President himself said that no military action would be forthcoming without that political rapprochement, but here we are, advantaging just one side of the political divide with our military advisers and weaponry he deployed pointed right at regions which not only harbor the armed insurgency but is home to Maliki's political opposition - all at the same time he's calling for political reconciliation in the vain hope that Sunnis won't align their own sympathies with the armed rebellion.

The 2002 AUMF hasn't been repealed, so President Obama, by declaring some right under that AUMF to stage air attacks into Iraq if he deems it appropriate is just a U.S. gun pointed at any resisting Iraqi's head; all the while pressing for political concessions standing beside the government that has refused to accommodate that opposition politically.

It's the same type of military imperialism which had Iraqis voting for their leadership with the U.S. guns pointed directly at the Shiite-dominated regime's political opposition.

Anyone who believes that the Iraqi army can precisely target just the bad guys and leave the Iraqi population safe, hasn't been watching the Maliki regime as it prosecutes it military force against rival population centers. This isn't something that our military has any business enabling, and I don't believe the president is being realistic about the dangerous blowback to Iraqis and others that is inevitable from our military interference.

What do we do if political rapprochement fails? If there is some agreement will U.S. forces be sent back to Iraq to 'watch over' the political process again?

Accepting Bush's 'terror' rationale for remaining militarily engaged in Iraq and adopting it is the president's responsibility and he should be held accountable for that, not sympathized with.

Accepting the notion that our military can aid ANY political goal inside Iraq without proving counterproductive and provocative is Pres. Obama's responsibility and he should be held accountable for that, not sympathized with.

13 replies, 1175 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply It's fine to have sympathy for President Obama in Iraq (Original post)
bigtree Jun 2014 OP
ProSense Jun 2014 #1
bigtree Jun 2014 #2
Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #8
bigtree Jun 2014 #9
n2doc Jun 2014 #3
bigtree Jun 2014 #5
G_j Jun 2014 #4
bigtree Jun 2014 #6
bigtree Jun 2014 #7
bigtree Jun 2014 #10
bigtree Jun 2014 #11
scarletwoman Jun 2014 #12
bigtree Jun 2014 #13

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:21 AM

1. All I can say is

"Accepting Bush's 'terror' rationale for remaining militarily engaged in Iraq and adopting it is the president's responsibility and he should be held accountable for that, not sympathized with. "

...it's a good thing he didn't listen to Hillary

Report: Hillary Clinton Pushed For Long-Term Troop Presence In Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025120790

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:23 AM

2. I've never given Clinton a pass on Iraq. She's just as wrong.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:18 PM

8. Touting her for President is far more than a pass, it is a promotion offered for reckless behavior

 

The rewarding of mediocrity, that is the key to why this country is failing, we have rewarded those who were very wrong about Iraq and punished those who were very right about Iraq. That's what we do in the US. We spit at excellence and elevate the mediocre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 03:36 PM

9. I've said I'd vote for Clinton as a nominee against any republican challenger

 

. . . I answered you in the other thread where you accused me of supporting Clinton for president. Now you're accusing me of 'touting' her.

I still believe that a President McCain or a President Cruz would do much more damage than any Democrat could or would. Don't pretend that voting against our nominee is any credible defense of what you've expressed as your political interest and concern.

You're dead wrong about who I intend to support. I haven't expressed support for ANY Democrat in the next election. Neither have I spent any time attacking those folks who express their choice. It's pathetic to rag on supporters of one candidate or the other to make your point; telling them what they believe and who they support.

It's even more pathetic when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I've defended Hillary Clinton on many issues and I've defended her supporters from attacks here - unfounded, viscous attacks from posters here who personalize their opposition to her supporters in vile and reprehensible ways. I'm always willing to stand beside those folks and express agreement with Hillary Clinton where I see fit.

I also offer up criticism here when I disagree with her.

Hillary Clinton was my third choice in the last presidential primary, Obama the fourth. I'm not going to take the time to explain the choices we face in presidential contests, but I don't believe Pres. Mccain, or Pres. Romney, or Pres. Cruz would be an acceptable substitute for our Democratic nominees.

I will be working for someone other than Hillary in the next primary. That's what 'support' is, not defending her against ignorant nonsense on this board which is presented as fact.

I've been consistent on Iraq, and I don't believe any support I've had in the past for any presidential choice contradicts that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:54 AM

3. People don't want to face the truth

Iraq was an artificial construct. They only way it was held together over the past century was with brutal dictators. We do not have the desire to be that dictator's replacement, nor can we just appoint one and still insist that they 'act nice' and 'foster democracy'.

Iraq will have to go through a civil war, and eventually when all sides are tired of killing each other, or have formed defensible borders, then the place might have peace. In my opinion. It might help to lean on our 'friends', the oil states, to stop throwing gas on the fire.

All we are doing is delaying the inevitable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #3)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:30 PM

5. gas on the fire

 

. . . a good description for U.S. military meddling in Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:04 PM

4. "..Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology"

///THIS!!\\\

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:51 PM

6. a lost point

 

. . . which also applies to U.S. military assistance to Maliki's army as it directs attacks against Iraqi targets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:56 PM

7. kick

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 05:00 PM

10. kick

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:21 PM

11. »

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:38 PM

12. Very good analysis.

It's so dismaying to see Obama use bush era framing in regard to Iraq. I don't understand it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarletwoman (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 12:04 AM

13. he learned it from his military and intelligence holdovers

 

. . . from the Bush administration; Petraeus; McChrystal; Gates; Hayden.

They filled out the new president's dossier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread