There has been no recommendation for... military commanders, either on the ground, nor here in Washington, that the United States put any ground combat forces into Iraq. That has not come up the chain to anybody at the White House. And I don't anticipate that it will, Chuck. I mean, let's be clear here....So it's down somewhere in the chain, but it won't get up the chain?
The president has been very plain that this is not a campaign that requires or even would benefit from American ground troops in combat again. The Iraqi prime minister, the government of Iraq have said very plainly, they don't want American troops in combat. We are there to help build up the Iraqi capacity to sustain their territory and to hold their ground.... It's not going to happen overnight. But if it isn't achieved, nothing is going to be sustainable....Sustainable!
Strategy's very clear....So the strategy's not clear, right? Or the strategy is clearly something else?
We'll do what we can from the air. We will support the Iraqi security forces, the Kurds, and ultimately over time, the moderate opposition in Syria to be able to control territory and take the fight to ISIL. We'll do our part from the air and in many other respects in terms of building up the capacity of the Iraqis and the Syrian opposition, the moderates.Oh! So we are going to be in a ground war in Iraq....
But we are not going to be in a ground war again in Iraq.
It's not what is required by the circumstances that we face and even if one were to take that step, which the president has made clear we're not going to do, it wouldn't be sustainable. We've got to do this in a sustainable way.She keeps saying "sustainable," so I guess that means it's not sustainable.
Then, we watched "Face the Nation," and Bob Schieffer — who was one of the Sunday morning talk show moderators Susan Rice lied to about Benghazi — was talking with Leon Panetta and brought up what Susan Rice was saying on the other network's show:
BOB SCHIEFFER: The President's national security advisor Susan Rice was on television this morning and she said if I understand it there has been no recommendation from military commanders that the United States would combat troops in Iraq. Does that sound right to you?We laughed because the tone of that Does that sound right to you? exactly expressed the dubiousness we'd just been expressing.
पोस्ट्स
१३९ टिप्पण्या:
The way she kept saying "sustainable" I thought she was talking about planting a garden, or something.
With ISIS at Baghdad's door, Iraq is lost.
She's stating the obvious.
Next step: Saudi Arabia.
Good luck with that 300-mile fence.
If only we had a 90-year-old king who was so pro-active.
"The way she kept saying "sustainable" I thought she was talking about planting a garden, or something."
I know, it was like: Maybe we can win the war with solar panels and wind turbines.
Putting the win in windmills.
The military people they've interviewed on TV have stated that the current bombing campaign won't get rid of ISIS at any time in the foreseeable future.
And Obama knows this.
He's fighting to lose.
Obama already blew the sustainability. He traded it for an election.
To admit that a victory would be sustainable after a military campaign on the ground now would be to admit that it was sustainable yet squandered back when Obama bugged-out of Iraq.
Can't have that, all about the narrative.
How conspiracy theorists have fun.
BENGHAZI!!!
How conspiracy theorists have fun.
BENGHAZI!!!
"That has not come up the chain to anybody at the White House. And I don't anticipate that it will, Chuck"
In short, if there is someone in the US military chain of command who supposes that would be a good idea, he had better not say so where we can hear him.
And Obama knows this.
He's fighting to lose.
Lying to both himself and us...
This will end badly for our soldiers, the Arabs, and Obama...
I watched her for a while, but just couldn't get past the fact she lies for Obama so I changed the channel.
Obama's air campaign goal is to provide Democrats US domestic political cover leading into the elections.
Obama believes the best thing for the USA to do is to lose. In Obama's mind losing will make the USA more accepted in the world. Obama wants the USA to lose and wants for decrease US influence in the world.
It seems like public officials used to be a little more circumspect about the bald-faced lies. Is that new, or was I just less aware of it when I was younger?
Bob Schieffer: "Does that sound right to you?"
Other token loyal expert: I don't know, Bob. We are journalists. But as pro-democrat journalists, our hands are tied, and we can only pretend to guess. WE really don't have the capacity or the permission to act in a curious and authentically unbiased manner.
""The way she kept saying "sustainable""
That is a buzz word among lefty academics. For example Sustainable Development
As such, sustainable development is the organizing principle for sustaining finite resources necessary to provide for the needs of future generations of life on the planet. It is a process that envisions a desirable future state for human societies in which living conditions and resource-use continue to meet human needs without undermining the "integrity, stability and beauty" of natural biotic systems.
Now, isn't that clear ? No carbon.
Rice is not a very good liar. "Future generations of life on the planet" is not an aim of ISIS. All those virgins waiting, you know.
When it's time for Goebbel's big lie: Rice.
Susan Rice is a good foot soldier.
Your's is not to reason why;
Your's is but to do or die
That is a buzz word among lefty academics.
Only if it isn't applied to lefty economic policy. ACA is not sustainable. Stimulus is not sustainable. SSA is not sustainable/
But you're not supposed to notice that.
According to many on the left, the conspiracy is that Susan Rice, Jay Carney and Hillary! never described "the video" as "heinous and offensive".
Even though they did. Over and over.
Our so called leaders are ridiculous.
Were we talking about Benghazi?
"There has been no recommendation for... military commanders, either on the ground, nor here in Washington, that the United States put any ground combat forces into Iraq."
"no recommendation for"
Not "from"
"no recommendation for military commanders"
So I take that to mean the political people haven't recommended ground forces as a way the military can help their agenda.
Susan Rice took one for the team but has not been thrown under the bus by Obama.
Just bouncing off the "heinous and offensive" Susan Rice mention.
She's kinda known for that statement, and it kinda kills her credibility.
Obama has decided to abandon the green Iraqi army to be recycled by ISIS. Perfectly sustainable.
We held off the Japanese for two efn years to take on Europe and we can't do this. Pathetic.
"We'll do what we can from the air."
Ah, the Obama administration, so aloof and above it all.
If he were alive today, Aristophanes would have used them as his inspiration for The Clouds.
"Mark Thompson’s Time cites retired Air Force General David Deptula who says airpower is failing to save the Kurds because the hand doling it out is both incompetent and controlling."
Belmont Club.
He's just running it past the election.
"There has been no recommendation for... military commanders, either on the ground, nor here in Washington, that the United States put any ground combat forces into Iraq. That has not come up the chain to anybody at the White House. And I don't anticipate that it will,"
And it won't if they know what's good for them. The President will not continence being informed through any means other than the newspapers and the other media after the fact.
"One of the weaknesses of the current administration is its over-reliance on the management of perception."
Belmont Club
The following is a report from a person "on the ground": "ELIZABETH PALMER (CBS News Correspondent): ISIS is now on the attack in a kind of half circle around Baghdad from the north around the west, and down to the south. At the closest point their fighters are in an outer suburb called an Abu Ghraib, which is about eight miles from the perimeter of Baghdad International Airport. There are now twelve teams of American military advisors on the ground with the Iraqi forces whose are charged with protecting the capital and America is also carrying out airstrikes nearby, mainly to the west and to the south. Now, nobody expects a major assault on the city anytime soon, but it's likely ISIS will keep up the pressure with a bombing campaign by slipping through the many army and police checkpoints in the city and even civilian security checks that have been set up in all public places, including in mosques. In fact, yesterday more than thirty people were killed in three separate bomb attacks. Now, outside the city, ISIS is in control of some major sections of highway and also key towns. The Iraqis security forces fighting them are holding their own, but only just."
Okay ISIL has Baghdad mostly surrounded (N,W and S). We have advisers ON THE GROUND with the Iraqi army ( perhaps a misnomer). Our air campaign apparently is a dismal failure as far as weakening and destroying ISIL is concerned.
In some ways I feel sorry for Susan Rice, but she keeps making herself a target over and over. For a bunch of "bright" people the "folks" in the Obama administration sure are stupid.
Does anybody get the feeling Susan Rice isn't interested in defeating the Islamic State?
I stand by my description of this Administration in April 2011:
"Amateurs. Incompetents. Ideologues. Full-time politicians turned half-wit government officials. Brilliant leftists who, confronted with the real world, are exposed as clueless idiots and children."
Still true, except now there's no-one left but the a very small handful of original Chicago-Dem mafioso whose loyalty was always greater than their competence, plus the third- and fourth-string dregs of the depleted Democratic bench.
Bless you for sitting though that show. But I can't even read about it.
It certainly does help ISIS to telegraph what we will and will not do. She must know that is traitorous so it must be double-speak.
Susan Rice needs to resign from public life. That tell she developed (when her lips move, she is lying) is interfering with her ability to give interviews.
How bad would it be for Obama if Iraq fell to Isis or into general disarray? Who would care, really, but the people of Iraq and some odious Republicans? It would be over fast, and we wouldn't have lost anything we haven't already lost.
Whereas, actually making an effort to save Iraq might take constant effort for years to come. Constant stories about successes and defeats and political victories and downfalls that opponents could use against Obama and other Democrats.
A failed Iraq would be so much easier and faster and sustainable.
tim in vermont,
"How Conspiracy Theorist have fun:
White people!"
And another white discards 400 years of documented evidence and history, for his own benefit and to paint himself as a "nice guy", once again.
Sorry, won't work,...
Obama's photo-op briefing from Sylvia Burwell on Ebola lasted all of 40 seconds before he left to play golf.
Does that sound right to you?
sustainable is just another marketing tag. Just like green. For example, the other day I bought mineral spirits. there was a jug on the shelf with the label "Green!" on it.
we're being "governed" by a fucking PR firm
"We'll do what we can from the air."
How inspiring, man I'm ready to ruck up now!
So we need the guy who climbed the fence and went in the front door to carry some military reality up the chain. But if we tried that he would probably be shot before he crossed the Anacostia Bridge.
Rice learns her talking points and speaks them well, but she is an amateur. She also laughed inappropriately when asked questions such as whether there is a re-assessment of strategy. Was there any independent thought beyond talking points that seemed to be stated by her during that interview? It is sad and dangerous that a person like Rice is the president's "national security advisor." Is there any chance that she brings anything of value to the table?
There's this:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
And then there'd this:
iWe'll do what we can from the air.
It was a nice civilization while it lasted. Would the last one out please turn off the environmentally correct CFL lights?
MayBee said...
Whereas, actually making an effort to save Iraq
How does arming the Kurds "save Iraq"? We are currently making a significant contribution to its further disintegration. All the Repubs are on onboard with this.
ARM- what do you think? Let whatever is going to happen to Iraq happen now?
Why not?
With regard to Obama's minimal efforts against the worst of Muslims (ie ISIS/ISO) and not supporting such of their opponents as are not at war with the USA, please see Article-III, Section-3 of the Constitution.
@MayBee: I think ARM is a Neo-isolationist -- except when it comes to Ebola.
I was somewhat interested until I found out that Susan Rice is not married to Ray Rice.
I only follow the important stuff.
Crack really adds something to Althouse. He reminds me of Carl Rowan. "What about Black people?"
"That has not come up the chain to anybody at the White House. And I don't anticipate that it will, Chuck."
Possible Translations:
"The people people at the top who actually talk to the President are wimps who are protecting their careers."
"The people at the top have no hope that the President will take their advice and despair of even raising the issue."
"I really have no idea what the military advisors will say, but I'm making this up to get through this interview."
"There is no reason you should believe a word that I am saying."
"The game was lost some time ago and the military leaders are not going to lead their troops into something bloody and futile."
"We are pretty confident that there would be a rebellion in the ranks if the troops were asked to go back to Iraq, after the commander in chief squandered the military advantage won at such a high cost."
My guess is that there are some responsible people in the "chain of command" who are contemplating resignation and public opposition to what Obama s doing (or not doing.) The key word is "contemplating." Actually doing that is a huge and consequential step.
Crack EMC Patriotism:
Ask not what you can do for the country, ask what the country can do for black people.
Susan Rice is not stupid. Why does she let herself be put in this kind of position? Very strange.
David said...
Susan Rice is not stupid. Why does she let herself be put in this kind of position? Very strange.
Bunker mentality?
rcocean said...
Crack EMC Patriotism:
Ask not what you can do for the country, ask what the country can do for black people.
Why should Crack respect Kennedy? JFK and MLK were at at loggerheads. Nowadays, the two might be at bloggerheads.
I mean, let's be clear here
...
Damn, my bullsh*t detector just redlined.
Her lips move; she lies.
Her lips don't move; she's thinking about her next lie.
rcocean,
"Crack EMC Patriotism:
Ask not what you can do for the country, ask what the country can do for black people."
Only racist whites who fuck with blacks think that's outrageous,..
"Coalition forces bomb ISIS in Iraq, black people hardest hit."
Something that occurred to me while reading this.
Conservatives will tolerate homosexuals and their behavior. However, we won't accept it. Celebrate it. Or get rid of thousands of years of traditions for them.
However, we will fight and die to protect them so that, in private, they can be who they want to be.
On the other hand, progressives will force acceptance of deviant behaviors. You must celebrate it. You must do away with your beliefs and traditions because they are bad, and progressives are good.
But they won't fight the barbarians at the gate. Who will come through and chop the heads off all the homosexuals.
Seems counterintuitive.
Or to be more precise. If Westboro Baptist Church crazies came to string up Crack, I have no doubt every conservative and libertarian at althouse would do what they could to stand with crack and stop it from happening. However, if the black panthers came for any of us, I suspect crack would be beside them, not trying to stop them.
AReasonableMan said...
MayBee said...
Whereas, actually making an effort to save Iraq
"How does arming the Kurds "save Iraq"? We are currently making a significant contribution to its further disintegration. All the Repubs are on onboard with this."
By "we" you better not be including me you piece of shit. I did my part to make Iraq better and while we were there it was better. It is the way it is now because Obama pulled us out.
I hope you know just how much veterans hate people like you. I talk to a lot of them still. We are looking on right now at how you are acting. We will remember.
eric said:
"Or to be more precise. If Westboro Baptist Church crazies came to string up Crack, I have no doubt every conservative and libertarian at althouse would do what they could to stand with crack and stop it from happening. However, if the black panthers came for any of us, I suspect crack would be beside them, not trying to stop them."
And ARM will be telling the world about how the armed forces screwed up the world while living in a country we keep safe.
And crack is a moby. It is the only way to explain how embarrassing it would be to agree with him.
I hear that "the effort to degrade and eventually destroy ISIL is long term project."
Yet "there will be no US ground troops."
Dude! Wars are not won from the air!
- Hammond X Gritzkofe, USAF retired
The time for commitment to a "long term project" in the Middle East was 12 years ago.
Quick removal of Saddam Hussein, followed by gentle pushing for a couple of generations could have instilled liberty, free markets, and democracy in the people.
Forty years after the end of WW II the US still had military bases in Germany and Japan.
At the time, I thought it possible. I was wrong. By the time of Gulf War II we ourselves no longer respected liberty, free markets, and democracy.
If the Kurds are to be massacred, let it be on the heads of the Turks and the Arabs.
The only good to be said of Obama's "long term" bombing is that it will likely end after the election.
Expressing the idea that a monomaniac who refuses to engage on the merits of his argument yet repeats it endlessly, who happens to be black, is a bit of a nut is not "racist."
This reverence for "Sustainability" gives scant respect to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Achilles said...
I hope you know just how much veterans hate people like you. I talk to a lot of them still. We are looking on right now at how you are acting. We will remember.
For a more nuanced view it is worthwhile reading this article in Harpers, unfortunately behind a paywall but easy enough to find at a bookstore.
As ever the question is why did we invade Iraq in the first place, what was the strategy? The country was held together by a Sunni autocrat and the Baathist party apparatus. Remove those and what was the expected outcome?
"Does that sound right to you?"
"Do you think people are going to buy this, or can we help the administration out with some better propaganda here?"
I'm so confused. If Benghazi was an issue because of a small, independent video (heinous as it was), surely there must be some larger-than-life Hollywood production that has triggered ISIS? Maybe the release of another Seth Rogan movie?
I think by 'sustainable' Susan Rice was referring to trying to get the military to buy up carbon offsets before they ship everything over there. All of this could take time. The CLIMATE, you know.
I still have the image of Prez Obama standing in front of the UN talking about that horrible video that caused such tension among the otherwise peaceful people of Islam. (gosh…can I say that?) Then the image of Hilary and Prez standing in front of caskets of those murdered in Benghazi. (yes…there's that word again). Looking grim. Thinking about golf (in his case), or 'how the f*** do I get away from this douche' (in her case).
Either way- this is a Pres. who would not have been qualified to run a DSW shoe store in Madison. Seriously. But we gave him control over the largest economy and military in the world. How's that working out for y'all?
ARM,
Why did we attack Libya, a country equally held together by an autocrat. If the previous administration's ME nation building was naive, why did we cut Mubarek off at the knees. And yet if demonstrations in Egypt were compelling, why did we silently stand aside and watch the Mullahs crush similar dissent in Iran.
I'm not playing your "but what about Bush" game. I'm pointing out that there is nothing unique in any mistakes you perceive the Bush administration having made that couldn't be leveled at this or any previous administration.
Iraq happened. What about now. Bush is the first six years of Iraq. Obama is the next and current six years of Iraq. Unless this is all a sophomoric rhetorical game to you, get your head out of 2003.
I tthink the so-called "Arab Spring" was at least partially engineered by activist factions in the State Dept. and the CIA and adopted by Hillary! and Clinton, Inc. to be her springboard for the 2016 campaign, and Susan Rice and Samantha Power were looking for top positions in her administration.
Now that it has all turned to shit, it is time to re-group, see what can be salvaged, and jockey for such positions as can be had, while vigorously stonewalling from any connection to the past, such as say, Benghazi, or Egypt, or Syria.
Let's just face it.
The only reasonable explanation for this behavior is, Obama is a Muslim.
As such, he cannot countenance one-on-one killing of Muslims by ground forces over whom he has ultimate authority and control.
Drones? Bombs and missiles? - sure. Those are random strikes from Christian Heaven.
Air power can destroy anything. It can hold nothing.
You'd think even The Most Brilliant President Ever could understand that.
CWJ said...
Why did we attack Libya
We didn't. Gaddafi was removed and killed by Libyans as a result of a broad uprising against the dictator. As part of NATO we provided minimal air support to stop Gaddafi from massacring Libyan civilians.
Not every event in the world is initiated by the US.
CWJ said...
I'm pointing out that there is nothing unique in any mistakes you perceive the Bush administration having made that couldn't be leveled at this or any previous administration.
There is no conceivable comparison between our roles in Iraq and Libya.
Hagar said...
the so-called "Arab Spring" was at least partially engineered by activist factions in the State Dept. and the CIA
No. There was a popular uprising against Mubarak. We are not responsible for supporting dictators against popular uprisings. I know some Egyptians, they were ecstatic about the removal of Mubarak. He was hated by almost every faction in Egypt. Again, not everything that happens in the world is initiated by the US.
As ever the question is why did we invade Iraq in the first place, what was the strategy?
Look at a map.
What's in-between the two places we went to?
What is there to gain out of talking to Susan Rice? She's been completely wrong on every issue she had to comment on, meaning she's either a liar or a dupe. Either way nothing she has to say has any credibility.
David said...
Susan Rice is not stupid. Why does she let herself be put in this kind of position?:"
The same reason Hinckley shot Reagan.
LOL. ARM. NO. Gaddafi's removal and assassination was all supported by the CIA under Obama and Hillary.
AReasonableMan said:
"As ever the question is why did we invade Iraq in the first place, what was the strategy? The country was held together by a Sunni autocrat and the Baathist party apparatus. Remove those and what was the expected outcome?"
While we were there it was going pretty god Damn well. There were two national elections, Al quaeda was all but eliminated, and iranian supported Shia militia groups were still a problem but they had stopped with the EFP'S.
Was it paradise? No. But we were winning. Most of the people of Iraq want what you take for granted. But they weren't ready yet and the left needed the US to fail. So you made it happen.
Our goal was South Korea.
Your goal was North Korea.
Now after 6 years of progressive policy we have genocide and rape camps. You people stand for nothing but your own power.
Which part of 'Libyan rebels' did you not get? We did not create the rebels. They were the ones who removed Gaddafi.
You think like an Iranian, everything that happens is due to a US conspiracy.
Achilles said...
Your goal was North Korea.
Bullshit. My hope is get the US gets out of permawar. Why do you think ISIS killed US citizens? They know permawar hurts the US in the long run.
...rebels need support. They got it. Nice try though ARM.
So Reuters is a conspiracy now?
btw- Hillary openly bragged about taking out Gadaffi.
You didn't respond, as usual. Libyan rebels. You are a complete conspiracy nut. Why bring that stupidity over here?
AReasonableMan said...
CWJ said...
Why did we attack Libya
"We didn't. Gaddafi was removed and killed by Libyans as a result of a broad uprising against the dictator. As part of NATO we provided minimal air support to stop Gaddafi from massacring Libyan civilians.
Not every event in the world is initiated by the US."
Oh my god you piece of lying shit. Hillary bragged for days about removing Gaddafi. The administration made it a centerpiece of their not bush campaign right up until Benghazi where their fellow Americans were killed by the guns we gave the rebels. Gaddafi would be in power if the US Wasn't providing the backbone of the effort.
I know you have trouble taking responsibility for the results of progressive policies. The results are disgusting. Just like you.
Achilles said...
I know you have trouble taking responsibility for the results of progressive policies. The results are disgusting. Just like you.
So, there was no popular uprising against Gadaffi. Is that your story?
Good luck with that.
NO ARM. The facts don't fit your tightly wound narrative. Any popular uprising against Gaddafi is now in the hands of Al Qaeda, who proudly flies its flag in many places in Libya.
Read the link I posted. Obama and the CIA backed the effort.
oh noes - conspiracy!
This truly desperate effort to draw some equivalency between our roles in Iraq and Libya is very revealing. It is a full acknowledgement of the disaster of the Bush presidency and its strategy in Iraq. Well done, you have conceded the argument on Iraq.
Keep digging April, the truth is out there.
You really are clueless and desperate, Arm.
April Apple said...
You really are clueless
From a two-time Bush voter. The truth is out there.
CBS news:
Clinton on Gaddafi:
"We came, we saw, he died."
I wonder why she would say that?
"We came, we saw, he died," she joked.
Yes the world really is controlled by the CIA April. There are no other sentient actors. It's all one big conspiracy and you have cracked it. Well done.
OK got it. Sophomoric rhetorical game it is.
Arm - Like a poster suggested above, get your head out 2003. Your obsession with Bush is clouding your ability to comprehend reality, circa now.
Reductio ad absurdum. The last refuge of a lost argument.
Don't be stupid, ARM. I never said the world is run by the CIA.
Your basic argument argument is that Obama did what Bush did in Iraq. It is both false and revealing, because it shows what you actually believe is that the strategy in Iraq was a complete failure. You are the ones bringing up Bush.
April Apple said...
Reductio ad absurdum.
No reduction required. It started off absurd.
April Apple said...
I never said the world is run by the CIA.
So you concede that the Libyan rebels removed Gadaffi?
No. That is not my argument at all. In fact, I'm not talking about Iraq at all, you are.
But at least with Iraq, Bush got permission from congress first.
Perhaps you should read this again, since you are having a comprehension problem, ARM.
Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels
You can go on and on arm, I need to get to work. ta.
CWJ said...
I'm not playing your "but what about Bush" game. I'm pointing out that there is nothing unique in any mistakes you perceive the Bush administration having made that couldn't be leveled at this or any previous administration.
Again, as always, April you only have shrill conspiracy theories. You are so obsessed with Obama and his 'badness' that you fail to recognize fundamental differences between Iraq and Libya.
Would you have preferred that the US support Gadaffi a known sponsor of terrorism? Because that seems to the be the logical conclusion of your 'argument'.
I think ARM must work for the "Office of Truth" in the State Department.
ARM said...Would you have preferred that the US support Gadaffi a known sponsor of terrorism? Because that seems to the be the logical conclusion of your 'argument'.
Now I'm a bit confused. Is it your position that containment was the right idea for Hussein/Iraq but not for Gadaffi/Libya?
ARM- So am I correct tat you support, as I believe Obama does, just letting Iraq fall apart now will be better in the long run?
HoodlumDoodlum said...
Now I'm a bit confused. Is it your position that containment was the right idea for Hussein/Iraq but not for Gadaffi/Libya?
Apparently so because Gaddafi fell as the result of a popular uprising. The US is not the cause of all world events. I remember the mockery for "we led from behind". In fact we didn't lead at all.
Would you have preferred that the US support Gadaffi a known sponsor of terrorism? Because that seems to the be the logical conclusion of your 'argument'.
Isn't that the Progressive view of Saddam Hussein?
Apparently so because Gaddafi fell as the result of a popular uprising. The US is not the cause of all world events. I remember the mockery for "we led from behind". In fact we didn't lead at all.
We did a lot to make it happen. Try and ignore it if you wish. At least Obama fucked up more than just the USA.
ARM said...Apparently so because Gaddafi fell as the result of a popular uprising.
Ok, I understand what you're saying a little better. I think some people here dispute how genuine/unassisted the popular uprising was, but that's clearly an objective disagreement about covert activities, etc.
I think the more interesting question re: Libya is what lesson it taught other dictators/authoritarians. Gadaffi pledged to give up his WMD and made noises about cooperating with the US, and after that we either directly helped the groups who overthrew and killed him or at the every least encouraged those groups in their work. It seems like giving up his WMDs and thinking about cooperating with the West didn't help Gadaffi and certainly didn't save his life. I have to imagine other dictators have internalized that lesson by now. From the standpoint of America's strategic interests it seems like a case could be made that in certain situations containment of a sort could be the better strategy generally, no?
There was an episode of "Firefly" where the constant refrain by the bad guy was: "Does that sound right to you?
Somebody take the shovel away from ARM.
ARM is back to his "All of the assholes are on the other side" routine I see.
Hillary fucked up Libya ARM, any other interpretation is partisan rationalization by yourself.
It would have been interesting to see how the "popular uprising" would have gone without our air power.
Per ARM's logic on Iraq, we should have let Libya be, it takes a strong and brutal hand to run an Arab state.
Also now we should look the other way and not undermine the Baathists in Syria, obviously.
ISIS appears to have used poison gas against the Kurds. We should look the other way. Not to mention mass executions of prisoners and civilians alike. Once again, we should look the other way.
Islam continues their century upon century of minor genocides. We should look the other way.
ARM is just one more partisan cheerleader when he suggests that Libya was any less of a mistake than Iraq, we just left out the intervening attempt to build a nation, and just destroyed what was there and left chaos.
Same as the Soviets did in Afghanistan.
"Never again" is just one more empty slogan.
I mean that, it is. We are powerless to stop genocide. We will not bear the cost in blood and treasure. I am not saying we should, but we should just cross out the words "never again" wherever they appear in reference to genocide, because they are just empty lies. Fooling ourselves causes the most trouble.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
I think the more interesting question re: Libya is what lesson it taught other dictators/authoritarians. Gadaffi pledged to give up his WMD and made noises about cooperating with the US, and after that we either directly helped the groups who overthrew and killed him or at the every least encouraged those groups in their work. It seems like giving up his WMDs and thinking about cooperating with the West didn't help Gadaffi and certainly didn't save his life. I have to imagine other dictators have internalized that lesson by now. From the standpoint of America's strategic interests it seems like a case could be made that in certain situations containment of a sort could be the better strategy generally, no?
Dictators are just like every other politician, they say and do whatever they need to say and do to retain power at that moment. I would guess much of Gadaffi's pliancy was a response to internal weakness and the growth of rebellion in his own country. He didn't want to fight a war on two fronts.
Personally I would have been horrified if we had tried to save his life, he had American blood on his hands.
I would not respond but your last comment was actually plausible. I agree with your first sentence. Who wouldn't? It applies to democratically elected politicians as well as dictators.
But your second sentence would have more heft if 1) He had not become more pliant prior, by a factor of years, to any overt evidence of rebellion. And 2) you had made your case on something more substantial than "I would guess."
As for your last sentence, non sequitur. We didn't try to save his life, this applies to had we done nothing as well. As far as American blood, that applies to what came after Gadaffi (your spelling) as well Gadaffi himself.
eric,
"Or to be more precise. If Westboro Baptist Church crazies came to string up Crack, I have no doubt every conservative and libertarian at althouse would do what they could to stand with crack and stop it from happening."
Ha! They just can't stop themselves from saying racist shit in the meantime - brilliant.
"However, if the black panthers came for any of us, I suspect crack would be beside them, not trying to stop them."
Why does everyone forget I was the one begging whites here to stop being racist? That they used to chase me away for insisting on it?
Now that I join them in kind, now I'm the racist - amazing.
I've saved more whites from beat-downs than anyone here - not a hypothetical but real life - but still they insist it's me.
I'm not reacting to them - I'm just a racist.
Reparations are going to be sweet against such liars,...
Overwhelming majority of commenters (actually I didn't read them all)seem to favor USA intervening in this Iraq/Syria/ISIS bloodletting. It would be a bad idea. Stay out.
Let people who live there fight to a conclusion even if it's a "caliphate". We should not and cannot control that region.
Susan Rice as a "national security advisor" is interesting. She seems like thee type that would be extraordinarily popular and impressive in liberal and academic circles - she is black, african american, speaks well with authority, and at least average in smarts. In such friendly environments where she is not challenged, she would be a superstar. But when I see her, she seems incapable of saying anything beyond her memorized talking points. I can't think of an example where she seemed to come up with an independent thought. She is a version of Obama, although he is smarter and more gifted.
Keith makes an interesting point. I think it is exactly the true feeling of Obama, but one he cannot say for political reasons. The most revealing comment by Obama was when he said if he was an adviser to ISIS (that he would say such a hypothetical probably demonstrates why he should not have been elected president), he would tell them to release western hostages with a note pinned to them saying "None of Your Business."
I could be convinced by Keith's argument. In 2003, freedom and democracy in the Arab world was worth a shot. Now, older and wiser, should we just let them terrorize one another for the next 100 years? Can we do that without creating unacceptable risks for us?
Thank you Kansas City. I agree with your distinction between stating a (more or less) rehearsed position and the mental nimbleness required of a politician when he is faced with a loaded question or an ill-premised question. He/she must be able to separate the question from the facts. Obama seldom does that but "spokesman" like Rice or even Presidential candidates (like Romney) do so even more rarely.
A sensible nation would have stopped to consider exactly why ISIS provoked the US with those beheadings. These are not stupid or ignorant people we are dealing with but shrewd judges of their own people and the most effective ways to mobilize them for war.
AReasonableMan said...
Achilles said...
Your goal was North Korea.
"Bullshit. My hope is get the US gets out of permawar. Why do you think ISIS killed US citizens? They know permawar hurts the US in the long run."
If we don't fight the result is North Korea. Period. Between China, Russia, Iran or any number of other countries they will invade smaller weaker governments just like China invaded Korea. We won in the South. China won in the North.
If we don't fight ISIS then Iraq will turn into a shithole manipulated by Iranians and Saudis. It will be different people running it but it will be very like North Korea. You can whine about perma-war from your comfy computer chair all you want whilewe protect you. But the resulting genocide, mass murder, and chaos is the result of your need for US failure.
You want Iraq to end up like North Korea because that is the logical outcome of your policy. You are responsible for genocide. You want the current mass rape to continue. That is the only outcome of your actions.
AReasonableMan said...
"This truly desperate effort to draw some equivalency between our roles in Iraq and Libya is very revealing. It is a full acknowledgement of the disaster of the Bush presidency and its strategy in Iraq. Well done, you have conceded the argument on Iraq."
Oh no you don't you disgusting wretch. What we were trying to do in Iraq was a complete commitment to Iraqi freedom.
What Obama did in Libya was a cynical attempt to mollify European allies and help the "arab spring." Obama and Clinton ran with the narrative that they made Libya safer and the terrorists were all dead. Remember the GM is alive Obama is dad commercials? Now we are seeing the results of progressive failure and you try to blame it on Bush and the armed forces.
AReasonableMan said...
"A sensible nation would have stopped to consider exactly why ISIS provoked the US with those beheadings. These are not stupid or ignorant people we are dealing with but shrewd judges of their own people and the most effective ways to mobilize them for war."
You are exactly right. ISIS provoked the US because they saw Obama for what he is. It does hurt the US to be at war when progressives are in charge. Obama's ROE's were absurd and reflected progressive disdain for the armed forces.
What we were doing in Iraq before Obama was in charge was completely different than after. I deployed under Bush. I deployed under Obama. The goals changed significantly. The last deployment we caught and released the same guy 3 times over 3 months. We killed the scumbags under Bush. We ran a catch and release program under Obama.
Give us decent ROE's and a mandate to wipe out ISIS and it would take a small number of us week's to absolutely annihilate them. But Obama has to want to win first. The problem is progressives don't want to win. That is why we hate you.
Argument had gotten pretty rough here. I would not give much credit to the evil ISIS for their strategy or thought process. There are barbarians and not bright or knowledgeable. I agree that Obama does not have the commitment OR WILL to win or, in his words, to destroy ISIS. His policy is headed for disaster. The most significant future decision by Obama will be when disaster strikes, does he abandon the effort (as he would want to do) or does he double down. My guess is that he bails.
Achilles said...
you disgusting wretch.
You are responsible for genocide.
That is why we hate you.
I heard worse in the lead up to the Iraq war, when we were regularly called traitors. Back then most Americans were on your side, now they are on my side. A majority view the Iraq war as a strategic disaster. This does not detract from the courage and sacrifice of the soldiers that served there. It is a judgement on the failures of the political leadership.
Your constant resort to invective suggests that you understand that the tide has changed.
Your efforts to imply that I, or progressives in general, do not respect the military is indicative of a desire to distract from the real issue, the strategic failure in Iraq. Nation building was not a way forward and has ultimately exacerbated our problems in the region. There is a reasonably broad agreement on this issue.
Kansas City said...
I would not give much credit to the evil ISIS for their strategy or thought process.
Which would be a mistake, given their success in winning the allegiance of the local Sunni population.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा