What if Baghdad Falls to ISIS?

 

There are now reliable reports that ISIS forces are a mile or so from the Iraqi capital. While CNN, NPR, ABC, and the rest have been celebrating our president as the second coming of Douglas MacArthur — with his “gutsy” air strikes and his diplomatic skill in pulling together a coalition to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State — the Islamic State has been quietly gaining ground over the past several days, and closing the noose around Baghdad.

Although the U.S. and U.K. are desperately bombing away to keep ISIS at bay, it’s not clear who or what can stop them from taking the capital. “They said it could never happen, and now it almost has,” according to Canon Andrew White of the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East. His people face mass slaughter if the radical Islamists take over, as do thousands of others.

So what’s the larger impact if and when Baghdad falls? Some quick thoughts.

First, strategically and geopolitically for the U.S., it’s a catastrophe of the first order. Like the fall of Saigon in 1975, it will be an overwhelming setback for U.S. prestige, not to mention honor, and our hopes of ever being a strategic presence in the Middle East and South Asia again.

Second, it will be a humanitarian catastrophe, starting with the massacre of anyone who has ever cooperated with the Americans or the previous governments. Before the fall of Saigon, we were at least able to evacuate 50,000 personnel and refugees in the greatest airlift in history. It’s very likely that there will be no time for any comparable operation, even if the Obama administration had the will do it. Expect an ISIS bloodbath that will make their previous massacres look like playground kickball.

Third, it will be an irrevocable blow to this president’s credibility. The media and the administration will try to shift the blame to Bush of course, e.g., “if he hadn’t lied about WMD’s and invaded in the first place, none of this would be happening.” Unfortunately for them, no one will believe it now.

If this had happened in the first year or so of the administration, maybe. Not now; five years is more than a “decent interval.” It was Obama and Biden, after all, not Bush, who declared victory in Iraq and listed it as a major foreign policy accomplishment; it was Obama, not Bush who pulled out American troops and had half a decade to bring the Iraqi army up to adequate standards — which it clearly hasn’t met and isn’t going to meet anywhere near in time to save Baghdad.

Furthermore, the entire air war against ISIS, and Obama’s phony coalition, will be revealed to be a sham at best, and at worst a campaign to deliberately deceive Americans as to what is actually happening on the ground.

It’s no good taking pleasure in seeing Obama and his clueless foreign policy team finally exposed for the hapless frauds they are. The fall of Baghdad will be a blow to our country’s credibility that, like the fall of Vietnam, will take years to recover from.

Fourth, it would spell the effective end of Iraq. Like Syria, it would exist simply as a geographical expression. Meanwhile, ISIS will consolidate its gains in the north and around Kobani; press ahead with their genocidal campaign against the Kurds; and use control of Baghdad to extend its war on other parts of  Iraqi society. That will also prompt the Shia majority in the south to look to Iran for protection; as I wrote in the Washington Examiner this morning, the entire Obama foreign policy has given a tremendous boost to Iran’s expansion of power and influence. The fall of Baghdad will put the capstone on it.

Fifth, it will be a major recruiting tool for ISIS. They will have seized one of the great capitals of Islamic civilization while the Great Satan, America, ran away and did nothing. Expect more young men to flock to enlist in its blood-stained ranks, especially in Western countries.

After all, if a small band of fanatics can reestablish the Caliphate in one ancient Islamic capital through bold ruthless action, why not another? Istanbul perhaps. Mecca and Medina certainly. Why not Cordoba in Spain or Palermo in Sicily?

Or Dearborn in Michigan?

If that sounds wildly improbable, you haven’t been paying attention these past five years.

We are living in an extended episode of the Twilight Zone—and our president has hidden the remote.

Just be glad you’re not in Baghdad right now.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 59 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_130720 Member
    user_130720
    @

    Yes; yes; yes. All true. All true. But, to coin a phrase:

     “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

    • #1
  2. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Arthur Herman: First, strategically and geopolitically for the U.S., it’s a catastrophe of the first order. Like the fall of Saigon in 1975, it will be an overwhelming setback for U.S. prestige, not to mention honor, and our hopes of ever being a strategic presence in the Middle East and South Asia again.

    I’d say that it’s much worse than Vietnam.

    In 1986, Vietnam reexamined its commitment to communism and began to liberalize the economy, a mere 11 years after the fall of Saigon.  It subsequently achieved 8% annual GDP growth from 1990 to 1997, and tourism has been a significant part of its economy since foreign travel restrictions were lifted in 1997.

    Does anybody predict a similar about-face for an ISIS-led Iraq in 2025‽

    • #2
  3. user_170953 Inactive
    user_170953
    @WilliamLaing

    Damage obama’s *credibility*?? ISIS could no more damage Obama’s credibility than they could sink the Tibetan fleet.

    • #3
  4. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Misthiocracy:

    Arthur Herman: First, strategically and geopolitically for the U.S., it’s a catastrophe of the first order. Like the fall of Saigon in 1975, it will be an overwhelming setback for U.S. prestige, not to mention honor, and our hopes of ever being a strategic presence in the Middle East and South Asia again.

    I’d say that it’s much worse than Vietnam.

    In 1986, Vietnam reexamined its commitment to communism and began to liberalize the economy, a mere 11 years after the fall of Saigon. It subsequently achieved 8% annual GDP growth from 1990 to 1997, and tourism has been a significant part of its economy since foreign travel restrictions were lifted in 1997.

    Does anybody predict a similar about-face for an ISIS-led Iraq in 2025‽

    You are right, though the geopolitical and strategic effect, to say nothing of the shame, of the fall of Saigon was profound.  Given our history of terrorist attacks in this country, which we didn’t have with the North Vietnamese, I wonder whether our citizenry might feel more of that shame this time around, which IMO, would be a good thing.

    I have a question:  What will Iran do and how will that matter?  Iran has supported ISIS in the past, but now seems to want to see its power lessened.  In the long run it could not have a Sunni caliphate on its doorstep.  Iran is helping the Kurds somewhat, and may be giving other help to Iraq–I don’t know–but with Baghdad threatened, might they not come into the fray in a much bigger way?  And what might be the effect?

    • #4
  5. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    You make a great point.  Obama’s foreign policy, such that it is, has increased the power and influence of our enemies and opponents almost without fail.  China? yep  Russia?  Oh yeah  Iran?  Hey lets make them a partner in our coalition, what could possibly go wrong?  The Twilight Zone parallel is brilliant, I will definitely be borrowing that one.

    • #5
  6. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Concretevol:You make a great point. Obama’s foreign policy, such that it is, has increased the power and influence of our enemies and opponents almost without fail. China? yep Russia? Oh yeah Iran? Hey lets make them a partner in our coalition, what could possibly go wrong? The Twilight Zone parallel is brilliant, I will definitely be borrowing that one.

    I’m still not sure that I’m quite willing to upgrade China from “competitor” to “enemy”.

    Now, would I label China as an “opponent”? That’s a tricky one…

    Russia’s an easier one for me to slap the label on, considering how close they like to get to my country’s airspace with nuclear bombers.

    • #6
  7. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Sandy: You are right, though the geopolitical and strategic effect, to say nothing of the shame, of the fall of Saigon was profound. Given our history of terrorist attacks in this country, which we didn’t have with the North Vietnamese, I wonder whether our citizenry might feel more of that shame this time around, which IMO, would be a good thing.

    I think much of the shame of Vietnam came from seeing the predictions about what would happen if South Vietnam fell (the famous “domino effect”) fail to materialize, and indeed seeing the opposite of those predictions begin to happen a mere decade after the end of the war. It reinforces the meme that it was an unnecessary war and that the Vietnamese should have been left alone in the first place to figure out all this “governance” business for themselves.

    Iraq is a slightly different story. If Baghdad falls to ISIS, and ISIS turns out to be as bad as predicted, the debate isn’t so clear-cut.  The hawks can argue “I told you so” that pulling out too soon would lead to chaos, and the doves can argue “I told you so” that it would have been better to stick with Saddam “The Devil You Know” Hussein in charge.

    • #7
  8. Sabrdance Member
    Sabrdance
    @Sabrdance

    Misthiocracy:

    I think much of the shame of Vietnam came from seeing the predictions about what would happen if South Vietnam fell (the famous “domino effect”) fail to materialize, and indeed seeing the opposite of those predictions begin to happen a mere decade after the end of the war. It reinforces the meme that it was an unnecessary war and that the Vietnamese should have been left alone in the first place to figure out all this “governance” business for themselves.

    I’m sure the people who died in Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Grenada, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and other countries I’m sure I’ve forgotten will be happy to know that America getting driven out of Vietnam in no way encouraged the Reds to move on to other countries.

    • #8
  9. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Misthiocracy:

    Sandy: You are right, though the geopolitical and strategic effect, to say nothing of the shame, of the fall of Saigon was profound. Given our history of terrorist attacks in this country, which we didn’t have with the North Vietnamese, I wonder whether our citizenry might feel more of that shame this time around, which IMO, would be a good thing.

    I think much of the shame of Vietnam came from seeing the predictions about what would happen if South Vietnam fell (the famous “domino effect”) fail to materialize, and indeed seeing the opposite of those predictions begin to happen a mere decade after the end of the war. It reinforces the meme that it was an unnecessary war and that the Vietnamese should have been left alone in the first place to figure out all this “governance” business for themselves.

    Iraq is a slightly different story. If Baghdad falls to ISIS, and ISIS turns out to be as bad as predicted, the debate isn’t so clear-cut. The hawks can argue “I told you so” that pulling out too soon would lead to chaos, and the doves can argue “I told you so” that it would have been better to stick with Saddam “The Devil You Know” Hussein in charge.

    That argument will certainly occur, but I wonder whether it will not be upstaged by the facts on the ground, which will continue to be very ugly and which appear to cause the majority of Americans to feel weak and threatened.

    • #9
  10. nyclawguy Inactive
    nyclawguy
    @TimTebowJr

    If Baghdad truly were in danger of falling to ISIS, do you think Obama still would refuse to send ground forces?

    • #10
  11. Mark Coolidge
    Mark
    @GumbyMark

    If Baghdad falls it will trigger Iranian intervention on behalf of the majority Shiite population and ISIS will have trouble maintaining control if it really has only 20-30,000 fighters.  Iran is seeking hegemony in the Gulf and under Maliki had a cooperative regime in Iraq; an ISIS takeover threatens that.  Of course if Iran intervenes the Saudis will face some interesting choices.  If you think things are complicated now, wait till that happens.

    • #11
  12. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    So far, afaik, ISIS has taken Sunni majority areas – including those which lead up to Baghdad’s NW.

    It may take Baghdad’s Sunni neighbourhoods – in the NW – but will it take the rest of the city, and if it takes the rest how long will it be able to keep it?

    You may be looking at a divided city rather than an entirely ISIS occupied Baghdad.  Still a bad outcome.

    • #12
  13. raycon and lindacon Inactive
    raycon and lindacon
    @rayconandlindacon

    Sabrdance:

    Misthiocracy:

    I think much of the shame of Vietnam came from seeing the predictions about what would happen if South Vietnam fell (the famous “domino effect”) fail to materialize, and indeed seeing the opposite of those predictions begin to happen a mere decade after the end of the war. It reinforces the meme that it was an unnecessary war and that the Vietnamese should have been left alone in the first place to figure out all this “governance” business for themselves.

    I’m sure the people who died in Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Grenada, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and other countries I’m sure I’ve forgotten will be happy to know that America getting driven out of Vietnam in no way encouraged the Reds to move on to other countries.

    Cambodia after the fall of Vietnam was decimated by the Khmer Rouge.  Pol Pot and the slaughter of over 1/3 of the countries population was the inevitable outcome of our defeat in Vietnam.  Ironically, it was the Vietnamese who saved Cambodia from utter destruction.  It was in their self interest once the Khmer Rouge shifted their attention from the Khmer people to those of Vietnamese descent.

    I was with the first group of Americans to enter Cambodia in the ’80s.  Anyone who believes that the fallout of our Vietnam defeat was mild should have been there.

    • #13
  14. Mark Coolidge
    Mark
    @GumbyMark

    Zafar:So far, afaik, ISIS has taken Sunni majority areas – including those which lead up to Baghdad’s NW.

    It may take Baghdad’s Sunni neighbourhoods – in the NW – but will it take the rest of the city, and if it takes the rest how long will it be able to keep it?

    You may be looking at a divided city rather than an entirely ISIS occupied Baghdad. Still a bad outcome.

    I think our comments reinforce each other.  If ISIS moves into Shiite areas this becomes an entirely different situation.  And I agree that if they just remain in the Sunni areas it’s a bad outcome and leaves the US with whatever Sunni allies it can find to deal with it.

    • #14
  15. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Sandy: That argument will certainly occur, but I wonder whether it will not be upstaged by the facts on the ground, which will continue to be very ugly and which appear to cause the majority of Americans to feel weak and threatened.

    Well, the USA didn’t continue to bomb Vietnam after 1975.

    As long as the bombs continue to fall on Iraq, it isn’t Vietnam 2.  You’re right that it’ll be ugly, and it’ll be a blow to the American zeitgeist, but as long as the US military is “doing something” there won’t be the same feeling of national impotence.  It’ll be different. Not better, just different.

    • #15
  16. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Mark:If Baghdad falls it will trigger Iranian intervention on behalf of the majority Shiite population and ISIS will have trouble maintaining control if it really has only 20-30,000 fighters. Iran is seeking hegemony in the Gulf and under Maliki had a cooperative regime in Iraq; an ISIS takeover threatens that. Of course if Iran intervenes the Saudis will face some interesting choices. If you think things are complicated now, wait till that happens.

    Arthur Herman argues elsewhere that win or lose against the Islamic State, the West’s outreach to Iran only sets the stage for more chaos in the Middle East — and more opportunities for Tehran to extend its power.  Michael Ledeen has made an even more stark argument that Obama is doing Tehran’s bidding.  As Ledeen puts it, The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa.   It will be complicated, indeed.

    • #16
  17. raycon and lindacon Inactive
    raycon and lindacon
    @rayconandlindacon

    TimTebowJr:If Baghdad truly were in danger of falling to ISIS, do you think Obama still would refuse to send ground forces?

    Yes!

    • #17
  18. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Sabrdance:

    Misthiocracy:

    I think much of the shame of Vietnam came from seeing the predictions about what would happen if South Vietnam fell (the famous “domino effect”) fail to materialize, and indeed seeing the opposite of those predictions begin to happen a mere decade after the end of the war. It reinforces the meme that it was an unnecessary war and that the Vietnamese should have been left alone in the first place to figure out all this “governance” business for themselves.

    I’m sure the people who died in Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Grenada, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and other countries I’m sure I’ve forgotten will be happy to know that America getting driven out of Vietnam in no way encouraged the Reds to move on to other countries.

    Fair point.

    • #18
  19. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    raycon and lindacon:

    Sabrdance:

    Misthiocracy:

    I think much of the shame of Vietnam came from seeing the predictions about what would happen if South Vietnam fell (the famous “domino effect”) fail to materialize, and indeed seeing the opposite of those predictions begin to happen a mere decade after the end of the war. It reinforces the meme that it was an unnecessary war and that the Vietnamese should have been left alone in the first place to figure out all this “governance” business for themselves.

    I’m sure the people who died in Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Grenada, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and other countries I’m sure I’ve forgotten will be happy to know that America getting driven out of Vietnam in no way encouraged the Reds to move on to other countries.

    Cambodia after the fall of Vietnam was decimated by the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and the slaughter of over 1/3 of the countries population was the inevitable outcome of our defeat in Vietnam. Ironically, it was the Vietnamese who saved Cambodia from utter destruction. It was in their self interest once the Khmer Rouge shifted their attention from the Khmer people to those of Vietnamese descent.

    I was with the first group of Americans to enter Cambodia in the ’80s. Anyone who believes that the fallout of our Vietnam defeat was mild should have been there.

    As the North Vietnamese could not stand the existence of the Khmer Rouge so Erdogan’s Turkey may, after making so many meaningless speeches, find that ISIS is just a neighbor that it does not wish to have.  They have the strength.  They have the strategic position.  They will attack without any mercy.  With the addition of overwhelming air power and logistical aid the Turkish Army would roll through them.  Now that Iran has abandoned any ideological defense of ISIS there is nothing standing in their way.  Erdogan has a great deal more than just a pretext as millions of refugees stream across the border to escape the ISIS murderers.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #19
  20. Byron Horatio Inactive
    Byron Horatio
    @ByronHoratio

    I suspect that Iran would simply occupy and annex what’s left of Shia Iraq. It would be hard to argue it’s not in their interests to do so.

    • #20
  21. St. Salieri Member
    St. Salieri
    @

    If we would see a Turkish intervention, would that result in what?  A restored Iraq?  Iraq with the Shia areas annexed by Iran, and Kurdistan left as ?  A revanchist neo-Ottoman empire?

    • #21
  22. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Byron Horatio:I suspect that Iran would simply occupy and annex what’s left of Shia Iraq.It would be hard to argue it’s not in their interests to do so.

    Byron,

    I wonder how Josh Earnest would spin this.  Must have been Bush or climate change, it couldn’t have been six years of the most incoherent foreign policy since Neville Chamberlain.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #22
  23. Byron Horatio Inactive
    Byron Horatio
    @ByronHoratio

    They will surely blame it on the lack of Iraqis coming to a “political solution” and failing to create an “inclusive government.” Which means nothing if your national army is overrun by dudes on pickup trucks.

    • #23
  24. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    I would not be surprised to see terror raids into Baghdad. I would be very surprised to see anything resembling a full on assault. The most likely course of action is to consolidate Anbar Province and continue to defeat Iraqi security forces in detail. At present, they can destroy Iraqi government forces faster than WE can reconstitute them.

    • #24
  25. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Included in the myths taking it hard on the chin of late:

    • Training and equipment can take a multi-tribal rabble and turn it into a developing nation able to shape its own destiny.
    • Foreign Service Officers are the undefeatable Swiss army knife of modern international affairs, or, is that Paul Bremer trying to slip away in the back of the room?
    • The Obama Regime is an articulate and capable defender of our allies. Or Obama himself.
    • The lone gunman who made his way deep into the White House was a right wing Army vet crazy. A Global Warming activist? How totally off narrative.
    • Neville Chamberlain was the most clueless Western leader on foreign affairs in the last hundred years.
    • The killing spree in the Middle East is about Western/US influences, not the uninterrupted 1200 year spree of Muslim on Muslim atrocities.
    • It is all Bush’s fault.
    • #25
  26. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Byron Horatio:
    They will surely blame it on the lack of Iraqis coming to a “political solution” and failing to create an “inclusive government.”Which means nothing if your national army is overrun by dudes on pickup trucks.

    Can you really call it a national army if, facing odds of 20 armed troops to one guy in a pickup truck the “army” drops their weapons and runs? I am expecting the announcement any time now that the field uniform for that “army” will now be a burqa. They aren’t giving their supporters much to work with.

    For years the detractors of a Western foreign policy that supported strong men (tyrants, if you prefer) rather than allowing the region’s native political predilections a chance have dismissively claimed that their way could be no worse than the status quo. I urge them to inspect their work closely.

    • #26
  27. user_656019 Coolidge
    user_656019
    @RayKujawa

    Arthur Herman:

    Third, it will be an irrevocable blow to this president’s credibility. The media and the administration will try to shift the blame to Bush of course, e.g., “if he hadn’t lied about WMD’s and invaded in the first place, none of this would be happening.” Unfortunately for them, no one will believe it now.

    The president’s credibility was not lost completely when he pulled the troops out of Iraq. Maliki and the Iraqi government was dysfunctional, seriously corrupted by Iran’s influence, attacking their own people and firing Kurds and Sunnis from the government. We accepted that the Iraqi people didn’t want our troops to stay in Iraq rather than fight the well crafted and organized propaganda war supported by Iran. Yes, the president could have fought harder to talk some sense into the Iraqi leaders over the status of forces agreement, but he was uncomfortable in that position and could earn himself some brownie points by getting out, a la ‘mission accomplished.’ But the situation with the army could be very complicated. We never know whom we can trust. And we would be dependent on the politicians and Iraqi leaders not to sell us out. How could we do straight dealings with these people when they were attacking their own people? So was Obama’s attitude, ‘you’ll see, you’ll need us sooner than you think,’ or ‘you’ll be sorry.’ We can’t force a sovereign people to do what we want them to do, we’re willing to provide freedom as soon as they want. But, just the same, Iraq was not acting like a sovereign people. They allowed themselves to be drawn too closely into Iran’s orbit. Iran that they fought a war with for years. Used chemical weapons against. An Iran who doesn’t care about Iraq, only what it can use Iraq for. An Iran so crafty at pulling the world’s strings. That Iran must still be contained.

    Then came the point of inflection when the president finally understood he could not legitimately appear to be turning his back on the Iranian people. Opinion had shifted too far, even among Democrats. And so he finally had to don the mantle of commander in chief, at least make a good show of it. This was the time when an anti-war isolationist president might be receptive to and want to hear good arguments about what our objectives could be to rescue our trusted allies the Kurds, the unfortunate religious minorities on the run from ISISILIS, have a serious discussion about cooperation with what’s left of a government in Baghdad. This was the time for conservatives, Republicans, and yes, libertarians to speak about what strategic objectives ought to be pursued and what priorities we should give them. This was the time when any president, even Obama this time, could have gotten almost anything he wanted from Congress because the American people, having seen our own citizens beheaded and our president standing by flat footed, were fearful and angry.

    This was the time for pausing to consider what our objectives were in the Middle East and Iraq. When we decided to dethrone Saddam Hussein by hook or by crook, Saddam provided us a precious gift. Saddam and his two sons and the Baath party had held the jewel of the Middle East against Shia, against Sunni, against Kurd. They held it intact, is my point. The Iraqi people did want us to rid them of Saddam, and they wanted democracy and republican government. By taking over Iraq, we could be the benevolent Hegemon, sharing power and decision making with the Iraqi people almost as equals, as long as Iraq understood they needed us to remain free. Iraq was to be a democratic ally to help create peace and stability in the Middle East. It would become a stable base of operations for us to operate from and from which it would be difficult for Syria and Iran to get away with much michief. Our allies at the time included Jordan and Israel to the west, and at that time Egypt was still friendly. Saudi Arabia to the south. Kuwait. Turkey talked friendly but they dcclined to permit use of their airbases. Turkey has its own interests. If things went south for the Americans and the Kurds were to rise up, they needed to be able to quell them without outside influence from the American do-gooders. So, we do need Iraq as a bulwark against sometime ally Turkey.

    Where were the pundits making their cases for the benefits of projecting strength in Iraq to minimize the possibilities of actual war while  simultaneously denying terrorists a safe haven and thereby helping to keep Americans in America safe from terrrorist attack? Everyone seemed to forget the Bush rationale of insisting that Saddam not be permitted to create a safe haven for terrorists. This was the reason we went in, first to Afghanistan, and then Iraq. We did it in our self interest. (Unfortunately, Bush later modified the narrative and reverted to selling the Iraqis on the idea that we were there to nation build. But we ought to never have forgotten the real and original purpose.)

    The president had his opportunity to salvage his presidency and become a historic president. But he blew it and punted. This is where, in my opinion, the president struck an irrevocable blow to his own credibility. Like Democrats selling major spending packages where all the benefits will be in the ‘out years’ beyond their time in office, the president elected on a minimalist offensive, barely enough to hold off the hordes, whose timeline will take us past the Obama presidency and of Democratic members of the house who might have to vote on it. A time frame that will have to be finished by his successor. This was the time to set a deadline, to say that we will effectively mop the floor with ISISILIS within one year, this is how we will do it. This is what cooperation we are going to get from the Iraqis, this is where they will permit us to control airbases and military bases. This is not like making a declaration that win or lose, we will bring all our troops home by such and such a date. This would have accomplished something. And this was the way to get Iran, Syria and yes Russia to listen and back off.

    We were not meant to be Russia’s pawn, and Syria’s pawn and Iran’s pawn all at the same time. This is how we become hated. We ought to be doing what is best for America and what we can to help our most dependable and trusted allies. So far it appears as if we are doing everything humanly possible to lose.

    • #27
  28. Rudolf Halbensinn Inactive
    Rudolf Halbensinn
    @RudolfHalbensinn

    Derek Simmons:Yes; yes; yes. All true. All true. But, to coin a phrase:

    “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

    No difference.

    Obama would look just as foolish as during the various scandals in his past. He would blame Bush or the Republicans or the Tea Party.  Or the Republican House and Senate after November.

    No difference.  And 20,000 dead Iraqis would not really be worth mentioning.

    • #28
  29. user_656019 Coolidge
    user_656019
    @RayKujawa

    Rudolf Halbensinn:

    Derek Simmons:Yes; yes; yes. All true. All true. But, to coin a phrase:

    “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

    No difference.

    Obama would look just as foolish as during the various scandals in his past. He would blame Bush or the Republicans or the Tea Party. Or the Republican House and Senate after November.

    No difference. And 20,000 dead Iraqis would not really be worth mentioning.

    There are times when I get concerned that both Democrats and Republicans are actually happy to be playing the blame game, and they don’t really have any reasoned arguments that they can sell to the American people, and are therefore passively watching things getting worse. But hey, they’re at least happy the other side is going to get the blame come election time.

    • #29
  30. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Sisyphus:

    For years the detractors of a Western foreign policy that supported strong men (tyrants, if you prefer) rather than allowing the region’s native political predilections a chance have dismissively claimed that their way could be no worse than the status quo. I urge them to inspect their work closely.

    Supporting tyrants became too expensive post-Arab spring – otherwise we would have continued to do so.

    But while on the subject of tyrants, you’ve got to admit that for all his many faults Saddam (a tyrant we supported when he invaded Iran but then stopped supporting when he invaded Kuwait)  didn’t run an Iraq that was being occupied by ISIS.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.