Cheney tries to blame the Iraq chaos on Obama

When FNC calls you out like you were a Democrat involved in Benghazi, you know you're a major tool, Cheney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-iraq_n_5510635.html

Tricky Dick 2.0 wrote a WSJ op-ed recently insinuating that the situation in Iraq now is Obama's fault. While I tend to agree that Obama's cabinet was a bit too eager to put Iraq in the rear view mirror without sufficient monitoring of the screwed up Maliki regime (easy to say in hindsight though), blaming Obama for what has recently transpired is like blaming the plumber for not fixing the toilet you clogged fast enough.

Obama never supported the Iraq invasion, when Dems like Hillary, Pelosi, and Biden caved to the post-9/11 mania. When he took office in 2008, the majority of his voters wanted us out of Iraq, especially because the Surge and Sunni Awakening seemed to put us on better footing to do so. Clearly we could have done more to ensure a better functioning state of Iraq, but I don't think it was feasible to have maintained a Korea-like long-term military presence there as McCain types claim that they advocated all along (even if that would have prevented the ISIS-led Sunni offensive).

For Cheney and other Bushies to tsk tsk Obama, while totally dismissing their past mistakes and role in the current mess, is a level of gall that I cannot possible hope to comprehend. Let's remember that the premise for the neocon War on Terror was basically: states that harbor terrorists are equivalent enemies to the terrorists themselves, and forcibly removing threatening regimes and replacing them with western democracy/freedom will make us safer. Well, Al Qaeda and Shia militias were not able to exist in Saddam's Iraq. Our flawed occupation allowed jihadists to congregate in Iraq, and enabled a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, to indirectly kill Americans and gain more influence in the region. The regime change in Baghdad that we orchestrated has replaced a brutal, corrupt Sunni Ba'athist dictator with a less brutal but more corrupt and sectarian Shia gang. Well, at least the Kurds got semi-autonomy. So the Bushies' hubris and incompetence pretty much negated their own vision for national security, to the tune of over $1T in costs, tens of thousands of US troops killed/wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

While Cheney types never really acknowledge or apologize for the fact that there were no WMDs, they keep trying to twist the record by claiming that they made "the right call" at the time, given the facts. The whole world wanted Saddam gone and there was virtual consensus that he had weapons. Sure, Saddam had few international friends, but I think most of us would have preferred him in power a little longer vs. breaking int'l laws and condemning Iraq to civil war. And maybe there was near consensus among the ignorant Congress (after sufficient bribery and intimidation), but the UN and international community was far from convinced about Saddam's arsenal and collaborations with Osama. But rather than face up to the truth, it's easier for the Bushies to retreat to their self-righteous dream world and dump their garbage on the black Muslim socialist instead. I suppose I am not surprised with this behavior, but I am surprised that the MSM would continue to give these discredited, disgraceful failures a podium from which to white-wash their transgressions and disseminate more BS.

With all the Iraq stuff still fresh in the headlines in 2004 (but apparently unable to penetrate the Bush bubble), remember how infallible, god-anointed Dubya couldn't even cite a single mistake during his presidency when asked by the media? These are the people who bullied us into Iraq, who are mostly responsible for the current chaos (at least from the western side of the equation), and who have the nerve to criticize others about it now.

What to do about ISIS, Iraq, and Syria?

I thought this was a pretty good article about the Iraq crisis and what to do next: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/17/getting-rid-of-maliki-wont-solve-iraqs-crisis/

----

I came across this article with a sort of summary of ISIS that i found interesting.  the writer's point is that Iraq was inevitably going to be a 3-state division.  Sunni, Shia, Kurds.  Baghdad has no chance of falling, Kurdish north has little chance of invasion, and ISIS was simply the first group to be able to tap the opportunity.   

----

Yeah I agree - the media and hawks always make any sort of new threat into super-villains (esp. if they're Muslim). Apparently ISIS or affiliates paid key commanders of the Iraqi Forces to defect/desert, and that encouraged the regular troops to flee as well. It's not on YT due to copyright, but Maher had a great monologue from his June 6 show about the 5 Taliban we traded for Bergdahl. Morons like McCain made those 5 out to be like the Legion of Doom or something, when really they are just marginal "terrorists" who have been out of the game for 12 years. Hardly an imminent threat to the US. But as your link said, hype hype hype. Plus, this offensive is not totally driven by ISIS. They are relatively small, but have the tacit or overt support of the Sunni tribes and paramilitaries in the area. Rolling into a vacated city is different than holding it vs. a modern gov't backed military.

I am not sure about our role in diffusing the civil/sectarian conflict in the Levant now. Rand Paul types advocate that we stay out, and just let the sects "have at it" like the Christians did in the 16th Century. It's their land and their problems that we are not qualified to solve for them. Short-sighted cynics would even say that it's great for Sunni and Shia militants to kill each other (but what about the innocents?). Maybe all this is a normal progression of major religions, and eventually they will mature into relatively peaceful coexistence.

Personally, I don't think that is feasible given America's tradition of global leadership and official stance on human rights (plus other nations' expectations of our leadership). Unfortunately there is no better alternative to broker a deal (Iran, Saudi, EU, China, Russia). However, the Syrian civil war is in its 4th year with over 200K dead and not much "concern" by western powers - which has caused us to lose more cred on the Arab Street. If we intervene in the region, it is going to be costly for us. But we should act when the long-term costs of inaction are worse (economic, reputation, safety of our local allies, etc.). The problem is it's really hard to estimate the costs of inaction. Maybe that is for the best, because once we commit, it can't be undone - as we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ideally, if we can somehow cut off support from rich Gulf Sunnis, Iran, and the inflow of foreign fighters, the Syria-Iraq conflicts may naturally simmer down without us having to put boots on the ground. If we can use our military resources to keep humanitarian corridors open, aid reaching the needy, and massacre prevention - it could buy some time for reasonable leaders to make a deal. But all of this is pie-in-the-sky and fraught with risks too.

You probably noticed that I said nothing about leadership change and nation building. We can't do that stuff competently so we shouldn't even try.

"What we left behind" when we pulled out of Iraq

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/29/307980657/exploring-what-we-left-behind-in-iraq
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/28/140428fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

This is a Dexter Filkins interview (few journalists have spent more time in Iraq). I know Obama campaigned on and promised to extricate us from the Iraq fiasco, and in 2011 no one in the US had the stomach to stay any longer (even if we were able to sign a security agreement with the Iraqi gov't). We were supposed to refocus on Afghanistan-Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But every decision has tradeoffs, and unfortunately here are the costs of leaving Iraq in the manner that we did.

The PM the Bushies tapped and currently remains in power, Nouri al-Maliki, is quite anti-American and sectarian (the CIA vetted that pick about as well as McCain did with Palin). Our presence there kept his Shia government from outright oppressing the Sunnis. So now he has free reign, and sectarian bloodshed has risen to the tune of 1,000 civilian deaths per month (at the height of their civil war, it was 2,000/month). He has also not only tolerated, but more or less absorbed into his regime, Shia militias responsible for hundreds of US deaths.

There likely can't be peace and progress with Maliki and his party in power, who are backed by Iran. So without our presence in the mix, the gov't has no incentive to stop marginalizing the Sunnis, and therefore the Sunnis have no incentive to stop fighting back with car bombs and such. Remember how we set up the Baghdad gov't to be a fairly representative mix of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd? Well that is out the window also, as Maliki has removed hundreds of Sunnis from their offices. His gov't has also removed billions of petro-dollars from the state to offshore personal accounts.

So maybe Iraq would be less dysfunctional now with different leaders in charge, but unfortunately their selection pool is pretty thin. They have no one who resembles a Mandela or Gandhi, much less a marginally competent non-ideologue. And so the show goes on. It seems that everything we sacrificed there (our national rep, thousands dead, decades of huge costs on the VA to name a few) was pretty much wasted, and the only positives we got out of it are Saddam was deposed, and we learned a lot of hard lessons on Mideast politics and counter-insurgency that we can hopefully apply to our benefit. Now we have basically no credibility or influence in Iraq and the greater Gulf, and Iran has a lot of influence, as we've seen in Syria. Iran doesn't seem to mind, but inter- and intranational social-sectarian tensions are at an alarming level, which could lead to even bigger problems and regional conflicts.

As a war critic, I don't know whether I would have advocated a long-term US presence in Iraq, but it wouldn't have been unjustifiable - after all we've had tens of thousands of Americans in Germany and the USSR is long gone. It's easy to see it now, but we could have mitigated/prevented a lot of these problems if we stayed - as the "adult supervision" and outside intermediary between the factions (of course we could have caused other problems too). The Obama admin. proposed to Maliki to keep a 5-10K residual force in Baghdad, mostly for training and advising. Maliki may have been OK with that (knowing we would be focused on Sunni insurgents), but he said Parliament wouldn't agree to immunity to local prosecution (a condition that US forces enjoy most everywhere they are stationed). Also some speculate that his Iranian handlers were against it too.

-----

since Iran had their revolution and deposed the shah, the country's been pretty stable.  They picked their own govt without American 'advisors'.  As I was told, when the shah was in power, you had social freedoms but free speech was not tolerated at all.  Now the social freedoms are minimal with regards to dress, but you can say whatever you want.  Political dissent is not discouraged.  There is a high literacy rate.  I'm not saying Iran is perfect, but it's their own government, not an american puppet government.

Regarding Iraq, we went in there and totally f'd up that country. We took a country, granted, that had it's problems, and turned it into a living nightmare with DU bombings, checkpoints and no normal life for anyone.  How do you propose the Iraqis feel about us?  Do you really think they would be 'grateful' to have us, any of us there?  The only thing we should be sending there is food, seeds(non-GMO, of course) and building materials.  They're an educated population.  They can rebuild and choose their own government.  

American advisors mold the country to benefit corporate interest and nothing else.  We assure their govt. is beholden to us, not its people.  I'm sure there are plenty of Gandhis or Mandelas in Iraq, but we call in a drone if anyone appears the least bit charismatic or uppity. 

------

Well, the Islamic Republic is not that democratic, with fanatical religious police, torturing secret police, and pseudo-elections where the popular vote winner still has to be approved by the Ayatollah. In that sense, I am amazed that they elected a reformer (Mousavi) currently. But hey, we thought we were getting a reformer in Obama too. Iranians must not be that happy with their gov't when they rose up en masse against Ahmadinejad's questionable re-election (green revolution). And of course gov't forces cracked down on them violently with possibly 72 deaths. Much worse than Kent State or Zuccotti Park.

I agree that our adventurism and pathetic attempt at nation-building in Iraq under Bush was an abject failure. For an ostensibly civilized superpower that "learned lessons" from Vietnam, we messed up about as badly as you can imagine. I assume Iraqi sentiment is fairly un-American, but I believe that many people would rather have us "in the picture" if it keeps the sectarian tensions under control. Sadly without us, things got more chaotic (bombings and killings are more frequent now vs. the months prior to our exit). I am not advocating a permanent meddling presence where we conduct daily raids and dictate policy to Baghdad. I would prefer more of a Bosnia-style peacekeeping force (preferably int'l, though understandably no one wants to join us) to prevent civil war and ethnic cleansing. And hopefully we could help broker agreements between the factions, call out corruption, and assist in development (forgive my naivete, but I believe we still have it in us to do things right). For all of America's faults, I would trust us in that role more than Russia, Iran, China, Saudi, etc.

Lastly, I think the most promising Iraqi leaders have fled long ago, and may prefer a better life in the First World vs. returning to a hornet's nest of problems and corruption. 

The dangerous sectarian nature of the Syrian civil war

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hezbollah-launching-offensive-profoundly-change-164121898.html

I haven't brought up Syria before because I am not well versed in the details, and frankly it's just depressing. But some recent turn of events have made things even more complicated and impactful.

- The civil war is about 2 years old, almost 100K Syrians (and some famous Western journalists) have died, and about 20% of the population is internally or externally displaced.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

- Israel has bombed a supposed weapons shipment to Hezbollah near the border. They may have also bombed a weapons facility in Damascus last month. We are used to thinking that Jihadi groups are also anti-government because most dictators in the Muslim World are kind of secular. But in Hezbollah's case ("The Party of God" formed to oppose the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon), they are explicit allies of Iran (a Shia theocracy and Shia majority nation) and Syria (neither of those). But Hezbollah is Shia and they support Assad against the rebels who are majority Sunni. So things are taking a nasty sectarian turn.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/world/meast/syria-violence/

- The regime or the rebels may have used chemical weapons in combat, which would violate the "red line" established by Obama as a trigger for escalation. But it's doubtful. However, America's #1 concern there is probably the containment of those WMDs. Even if Assad is toppled, who will control and distribute his stockpile?

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/05/166580524/chemical-weapons-and-the-syrian-civil-war

- We know that Iran and Russia (and China sort-of) support Assad's regime because they are strategic/trade allies, and Assad as seen as a counter to Israel and US "domination" of the region. So they have blocked stronger EU-led actions against Assad in the UN, and continue to ship high tech weapons to Damascus in spite of global condemnation.

- The EU embargo on weapons trade with Syria just expired, so the UK and France are considering arming the rebels (but which rebels is a big question). The UN has opposed this, and the US doesn't want to go down that route for obvious reasons, but has likely provided advisers and non-lethal resources to some rebels. We are trying to prop up non-Jihadi, pro-Western rebels, because unfortunately some of the most powerful and effective rebel groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are Sunni extremists who have recently allied themselves with Al Qaeda (and therefore got on the global terror list and cut off from Western aid). So clearly we don't want to arm them and help them win, but we also want Assad to fall. Of course rebel groups are fighting each other too, as we saw in Libya. The West is caught in a terrible spot: Assad is a jerk and supported by orgs and nations we don't get along with. He is slaughtering his people, but he is also keeping Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood out of power there. It's like Egypt but compounded by WMD containment fears.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-syria/

- As if that wasn't bad enough, the top link from Yahoo describes how Hezbollah is now actively sending in fighters to Syria to defend Assad, a noteworthy escalation (Muslim fighters flocking to Syria, like Afghanistan and Iraq before). This may help Assad cling to power but turn the populace against Islamic groups, though most of them have already picked sides. The Shia Alawites are the ruling minority; wealthier, urban, and aligned with Assad. So Iran, some of Iraq, and Hezbollah obviously support that side, and Saudi, Israel, and Al Qaeda oppose them (interesting "allies" indeed). Al Qaeda leaders have also urged other Muslims to go to Syria and topple Assad. The poorer, oppressed majority are Sunnis, who want Assad out either because they are pro-reform or hate Shia/Alawites or follow Salafi-Jihadi fundamentalist Sunni Islam like Al Qaeda. As we've seen in Iraq, both sides may think of the other as heretics, and both have a history of ethnic cleansing (BTW the Syria conflict is also inflaming sectarian tension in fragile Iraq now too). So Assad and the Shia see this as an existential struggle, because they fear that if the Sunnis take over, they will be slaughtered.

- So who should the West back and arm? It's a confusing mess. Some have said we should intervene on a humanitarian basis and protect civilians. Enforce a no-fly zone maybe. A few problems with that (that completely escape folks like McCain): Syria's air defenses are much better than Libya's or Serbia's. Syria has WMDs and delivery systems for them, unlike Libya or Serbia. Syria is next door to our allies in Iraq and Israel, unlike Libya or Serbia. You get the picture. I am not sure what the "right thing to do" is, but if we intervene militarily, it's going to be ugly with a lot of consequences. What I also fear is an escalating multi-nation sectarian war. We know that various groups are financially and militarily backing or opposing the various Syrian forces. And those backers don't like each other: Iran, Saudi, Israel, the EU, Russia, China, US, and NGOs connected to Jihadi terrorism. This proxy war may eventually evolve into an overt war. And if that happens, Iraq will look tame in comparison.