Althouse: "Chris Wallace Presses Cheney on Iran: Didn’t You ‘Leave President Obama with a Mess’?"

September 8, 2015

"Chris Wallace Presses Cheney on Iran: Didn’t You ‘Leave President Obama with a Mess’?"

"Why no, no he didn’t. In fact, things were going so well as late as 2010 that the Obama Administration was bragging about Iraq as one of its big foreign policy successes.... Obama blew it in Iraq, which is in chaos, and in Syria, which is in chaos, and in Libya, which is in chaos."

98 comments:

Gahrie said...: The Democrats lost the peace in Iraq after we had won the war, just as they lost the peace in Vietnam after we had won the Vietnamese war.; 9/8/15, 9:34 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: Everybody knows that the way to end a war is to win it so my view is that it was never really a war to begin with.; 9/8/15, 9:35 AM
traditionalguy said...: Chris Wallace is. Fox News apparatchik. What do you expect.

With friends like Wallace, the GOP doesn't need enemies.; 9/8/15, 9:36 AM
Robert Cook said...: We never won the war in Iraq...we just illegally overthrew a government and maintained an armed presence to try to keep the peace. (we never won the war in Vietnam, either...though I know it's psychologically necessary for Americans to assert we have won every fight we were ever involved in.); 9/8/15, 9:39 AM
traditionalguy said...: Bush II had screwed up by letting Reid and Pelosi announce defeat and win control over Congres before the Petraeus surge surprisingly won it all. Bush and Petraeus have never been forgiven.; 9/8/15, 9:39 AM
Sebastian said...: Bigger question for the country: if Dems/Progs will squander any gains in any conflict they oppose, can we reasonably ask any Americans to sacrifice their lives in any future conflict?

Having to consider the question is part of Prog strategy to weaken the U.S.; 9/8/15, 9:40 AM
cubanbob said...: And right on cue come Cook with his international law bullshit.; 9/8/15, 9:42 AM
Birkel said...: I enjoy reading Robert Cook using the word "we" as if it had meaning.; 9/8/15, 9:43 AM
Brando said...: I don't really see what more anyone could have done in Iraq to "save" it short of installing another murderous strongman (who hopefully we could control). Keeping a large military force there for another decade or so would just mean tying us down in a long guerilla war, and letting Iraq run its own affairs got us to where we are.

It's depressing, but we cannot always solve all the world's problems. Iraqis are going to have to figure things out or descend into chaos.; 9/8/15, 9:46 AM
khesanh0802 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/8/15, 10:01 AM
khesanh0802 said...: I do remember Joe Biden bragging that peace in Iraq might be Obama's greatest achievement. What peace? The history of Iraq will not be kind to Paul Bremmer or Obama. Bush, of course, is ultimately responsible for the invasion, surge and initial "nation building" that went pretty well. Bremmer destroyed the civil infrastructure of Iraq which ultimately led to insurrections that the surge defeated.

Emma Sky in her book "The Unraveling" exposes one of the biggest problems in our management of Iraq: the rotation of competent military commanders who had a good understanding of, and good working relations with, the Iraqi leaders. These commanders were very successful in their AOR's, but because of the career path of the military they left when they were most sorely needed. It seems that because of the tribal nature of Iraq that personal relationships were critical to combined military /political success. Military leaders were at the forefront of establishing those relationships. Rotation destroyed the relationship and the trust.; 9/8/15, 10:03 AM
bleh said...: When Obama was running for reelection, he was trumpeting our victories in Iraq and Afghanistan and over al Qaeda, who was "on the run."

On what planet should Bush/Cheney be responsible for the dramatic reversal in fortunes since then?; 9/8/15, 10:04 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Don't forget Obama's Yemen success...; 9/8/15, 10:06 AM
Krumhorn said...: The lefties...and that includes the likes of Robert Cook...own this mess. W and Cheney left things in pretty good shape.

Is it not too soon in this thread to trot out the old "defeat monkeys" epithet? Always loved that one.

- Krumhorn; 9/8/15, 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: cookie is an ahistoric a-hole. He claims Christian leaders killed more people than the socialists and then hides when confronted and asked to name those 'Christian leaders'. He claims that the Nazis weren't socialists but then runs away when provided with Hitler's and Goebbels own words on the subject.

Cookies world-view places himself in the role of Messiah. A non-introspective, non-self aware, selfish Savior.
Fuck him.; 9/8/15, 10:16 AM
TrespassersW said...: How long will the Lickspittle Media(TM) continue to cover up the clusterfuck that is this administration? As long as they continue being tree believers in the clusterfuck that is progressivism.; 9/8/15, 10:16 AM
TrespassersW said...: True, not tree.

Although they demonstrate all the mental flexibility and nimbleness of a tree.; 9/8/15, 10:18 AM
Bricap said...: Was the surge meant to be a lasting success, though? To me, it showed that we didn't have enough of a presence post-invasion to begin with. It was only a matter of waiting it out, because everyone knew we couldn't keep up such a presence for a sustained period (gee, lots of people wanted war in Iraq, but few actually wanted to sign up,what a shock). The Sunnis became disenfranchised under Maliki and via de-Baathification prior to that, and Maliki wanted us out. What, pray tell, was the real solution at that point in time?; 9/8/15, 10:20 AM
William said...: The liberal view used to be that Republicans caused WWII because they denied Wilson's grand vision and kept us from joining the League of Nations........I suppose our invasion of Iraq fucked up Iraq, but Saddam had already done a fairly thorough job of screwing up that country. He was the immediate cause of a great many corpses, but you're not really a martyr in the Middle East unless you're killed by an Israeli or an American. Bonus virgins if you're killed in a drone strike.......You wold think that Saddam is a low bar, and just about any replacement would be an improvement. But you would be wrong. Bush's bad. You would think that Quaddaffi would also be easy to improve on. Wrong again. Hillary's bad......And, of course, if you just leave the madmen alone, as we did in the case of Assad, then things will work out eventually. Still wrong. Obama's bad.........I'm convinced that there is nothing you can do in the Middle East that isn't some kind of blunder.; 9/8/15, 10:20 AM
Robert Cook said...: "How long will the Lickspittle Media(TM) continue to cover up the clusterfuck that is this administration?"

Who says this administration is a clusterfuck? You assume they're failing at whatever you think they're trying to do. How do you know they're not achieving exactly what they set out to do? And this may be, from their point of view, and the point of view of those whom they serve--not 99.99% the American public, by the way--quite a good thing.; 9/8/15, 10:23 AM
Achilles said...: Robert Cook said...
"We never won the war in Iraq...we just illegally overthrew a government and maintained an armed presence to try to keep the peace. (we never won the war in Vietnam, either...though I know it's psychologically necessary for Americans to assert we have won every fight we were ever involved in.)"

You are a despicable person and a liar. We won in south korea, Japan, Europe, and many other places. The reason we lost in Vietnam and now Iraq is because of you. You own the genocides that have followed your actions. You choose to live under our protection in liberty but undermine our mission at every opportunity. You want the world to be north korea.

Get the fuck out of this country.; 9/8/15, 10:23 AM
Jaq said...: How many refugee ships has Hillary launched? the new Helen.; 9/8/15, 10:25 AM
Krumhorn said...: Oh, and by the way, Cook, we most certainly did win the Vietnam war. The NVA regulars were defeated. It was, as usual, the American left that beat us. I flew over Haiphong harbor with full loads of 250 and 500 lb bombs and 5" missiles in my A-4 as Russian ships below unloaded their cargo of arms. Under orders to leave them unmolested, I was forced to destroy some dangerous rice paddies and menacing Cong on rusty bikes instead.

My loathing of lefties knows no bounds.

- Krumhorn; 9/8/15, 10:25 AM
Krumhorn said...: Who says this administration is a clusterfuck? You assume they're failing at whatever you think they're trying to do. How do you know they're not achieving exactly what they set out to do? And this may be, from their point of view, and the point of view of those whom they serve--not 99.99% the American public, by the way--quite a good thing.

Oddly, Cook has lurched into the truth here. This possibly represents the only thing he has ever posted here with which I completely agree.

- Krumhorn; 9/8/15, 10:32 AM
Michael K said...: Keeping a large military force there for another decade or so would just mean tying us down in a long guerilla war,

You mean like Korea or Germany where we still have troops ?

Come on. the guerrilla war was just about over. The Bremer State Dept regime had fucked up the country and, yes, we should have left a strongman we could control in charge, Leaving meant no control at all.

The debacle Obama unleashed is a world wide catastrophe that will destroy Europe as millions, not thousands, of young military age Muslim men seek the best welfare benefits, then bring their women and children later. I have cancelled my trip to Greece as I did not want to deal with chaos. I'm going to Britain tomorrow and then to Belgium with friends to visit the Waterloo battlefield on the 200th anniversary of the battle.

I'm not sure I will ever go to Europe again. Even Britain is having increasing problems with Muslims and Cameron has now agreed to admit another 20,000. The Chunnel is jammed with rioting Muslims trying to get to England so they can join The Dole.

In 2008, Obama said that "genocide was not a good enough reason to leave troops in Iraq," so Cookie can say we were warned.

He won't of course,; 9/8/15, 10:34 AM
Drago said...: Krumhorn: " I flew over Haiphong harbor with full loads of 250 and 500 lb bombs and 5" missiles in my A-4 as Russian ships below unloaded their cargo of arms."

Single Seat: Alone and unafraid!

My favorite memories are still of the back seat hops I was able to grab in Beeville as a result of getting my backseat qual. First time aloft was in 2v1 ACM in the instructor bird. Surface/Submarine Warfare was never really an option after that.; 9/8/15, 10:34 AM
chuckR said...: @Lem

Yemen success? How wonderful would it be if an Iranian puppet regime controlled one side of the Bab al Mandab - the strait at the bottom of the Red Sea? The Persians already control one side of the Straits of Hormuz. Two choke points - one on Suez Canal traffic and one on Middle East oil. Certainly, BHO would send a missive full of harsh words to the Ayatollahs. If only the Iranians could get their co-religionists to do something similar in the Straits of Malacca. A perfect trifecta!

A community organizer's MO is to break what he doesn't like. It falls to somebody else to figure out what to replace it with. BHO has comprehensively broken the Middle East and has no idea how to fix it.; 9/8/15, 10:35 AM
Achilles said...: Brando said...
"I don't really see what more anyone could have done in Iraq to "save" it short of installing another murderous strongman (who hopefully we could control). Keeping a large military force there for another decade or so would just mean tying us down in a long guerilla war, and letting Iraq run its own affairs got us to where we are.

It's depressing, but we cannot always solve all the world's problems. Iraqis are going to have to figure things out or descend into chaos."

I expect historical ignorance at this point.

How long have we been in south korea? Was that worth the price we paid? Without our occupation it is north korea in about the same time it took Iraq to fall.

People seem to think, like Biden and Obama did in 2010, that democracy and freedom come naturally. They do not. And when they are wrong rather than accept responsibility they throw their hands up and say there was nothing we could do. Garbage. If you want the world to be a better place you have to fight for it.

The choice is north korea or south Korea. We know what the left wants.; 9/8/15, 10:35 AM
Drago said...: Michael K: "The Bremer State Dept regime had fucked up the country and, yes, we should have left a strongman we could control in charge, Leaving meant no control at all."

The reality is, despite all of cookies hilarious Marxist claims, the US is not an imperial military power and our lack of a quality British Foreign Service office along with the appropriately trained/knowledgeable/experienced personnel is the clearest indicator of that.

And that is never going to change. We can argue the pros and cons all day. But it is what it is and given that reality, it seriously calls into question Bush and his staff moving from a "Remove Saddam" strategy (which was completely successful) into a nation building strategy.; 9/8/15, 10:37 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Actually Bush lost the peace in Iraq, but then he called in General Petraeus in late 2006, and won it, almost. Obama, at first, continued the policy, and Al Qaeda in Iraq retreated almost entirely into Syria after 2011. Where it was ignored, or even helped by some U.S. "allies"

And then, a few years later Obama really started to lose the peace, but, because he intervened with air raids a little bit in 2014, he prevented another South Vietnam.

Bush at first won the peace in Afghanistan but then the success of al Qaeda in Iraq started to make its way to Afghanistan.; 9/8/15, 10:42 AM
khesanh0802 said...: It's probably fair to ask the Ronald Reagan question: Is the Middle East in better shape than it was seven years ago? The answer is most definitely NO. Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya are a mess; Europe is probably about to explode over the refugee issue; and we have essentially given Iran the okay to develop a nuclear weapon. What a mess!; 9/8/15, 10:45 AM
khesanh0802 said...: Oh, I forgot. Russia is rumored to be about to send troops to Syria. Help!; 9/8/15, 10:46 AM
Robert Cook said...: "(Cook) claims Christian leaders killed more people than the socialists and then hides when confronted and asked to name those 'Christian leaders'."

I have no idea what you're referring to here.

"He claims that the Nazis weren't socialists but then runs away when provided with Hitler's and Goebbels own words on the subject."

Please don't assume I'm waiting eagerly to read and reply to your comments. I leave this blog and attend to other matters for good stretches of time...as, I assume, do most commenters here. I don't recall seeing any words you may have provided from Goebbels and Hitler declaring their socialism. Hitler hated the communists and socialists, and put them in concentration camps, so any claims by on him on record that he or the Nazis were socialists must be considered in context of the time and circumstances in which he said it.(Shall we assume that tyrannical states calling themselves republics--China, Soviet Russia, Korea, etc.--are actually republics?); 9/8/15, 10:46 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: khesanh0802 said... 9/8/15, 10:03 AM

Emma Sky in her book "The Unraveling" exposes one of the biggest problems in our management of Iraq: the rotation of competent military commanders who had a good understanding of, and good working relations with, the Iraqi leaders. These commanders were very successful in their AOR's, but because of the career path of the military they left when they were most sorely needed.

The United states solved problems, and then "forgot" how to handle things.

For instance, because Iranian-backed (I mean where did these IED's come from and who taught anyone how to biuild them?) suicide terrorists drove right past checkpoints, and then exploded a bomb, the U.S. military had a policy at firing at anybody who didn't stop (even after the terorists stopped doing this.) It was often innoocent Iraqi civilians who didn't stop. At least not well before the checkpoint.

This was solved by putting up signs indoicating the road was undergoing repair, rather than that there was a U.S. military checkpoint there, but then this solution was forgotten.; 9/8/15, 10:49 AM
Carol said...: And Quadaffi had a deal with Europe to bottle up subsaharan refugee in Libya before they could get to Italy...now southern Italy is turning into a hellhole because the natives are being mean to refugees seeking a Better Life!; 9/8/15, 10:50 AM
Achilles said...: "I don't recall seeing any words you may have provided from Goebbels and Hitler declaring their socialism. "

Adolf Hitler, quotes about Nazi:
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

Adolf Hitler, quotes about Nazi:
Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?

Link: https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/some-quotes-on-socialism-and-fascism/

Please move to north korea or Iraq. You deserve to live in those hells.; 9/8/15, 10:55 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Robert Cook:

"Shall we assume that tyrannical states calling themselves republics--China, Soviet Russia, Korea, etc.--are actually republics?"

Which reminds me of what Quaddafi did in 1977.

He said that every government that was tyranny had a word in its name that told everyone it was atyranny (something like that0

So he was going to change to name of the:

Libyan People's Socialist Arab Republic.

But he didn't announce the new name, yet. That would be unveiled later.

Fidel Castro paid an emergency visit.

The time cvame when Quadafi revealed the magic word.

Was it perhaps "People's?"

No.

Was it perhaps "Socialist"

No.,

Was it perhaps...Arab?

No.

Libyan????

No,

The word was:

Republic

And as a result the country was now going to be called:

The Libyan People's Socialist Arab Public.

Jamahariya in Arabic. He came up with a whole administrative set-up for this.

Later when, they made fun of this I think, he used:

The Libyan People's Socialist Arab Jamahariyah even in English or the Roman alphabet.; 9/8/15, 10:57 AM
Achilles said...: Adolf Hitler quotes:
Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same.; 9/8/15, 10:57 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: khesanh0802 said... 9/8/15, 10:46 AM

Oh, I forgot. Russia is rumored to be about to send troops to Syria. Help!

Not right now.

Putin said it was "premature" to say that.

Russia also says that they are only fulfilling contracts, and don't you want to fight ISIS?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/world/europe/russia-answers-us-criticism-over-military-aid-to-syria.html?_r=0

“We have always supplied equipment to them for their struggle against terrorists,” Maria V. Zakharova, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said in an interview. “We are supporting them, we were supporting them and we will be supporting them” in that fight....

...Ms. Zakharova said military aid was consistent with a proposal by Mr. Putin that all the forces battling the Islamic State combine efforts. The specific details of the aid were a matter for the Defense Ministry, she said, not the Foreign Ministry. The Defense Ministry has said it was fulfilling existing contracts.

“Our proposal is to gather all the efforts together — all the international players, all Syria’s neighbors, all members of the opposition coalition, all of those who are involved,” Ms. Zakharova said, asserting that Moscow had already broached the idea with Washington. Since the idea is to share information among all the major players, she said, that would minimize the risk of any unexpected confrontation.

Russian diplomats said they suspected that the real, unstated goal behind the American criticism was that the United States and some other opponents of Mr. Assad want to use the fight against the Islamic State to pursue their original goal of deposing him. Russia opposes that both as a goal and a principle.

Of course, The U.S. thinks they can fight other forces besides ISIS. And also cause refugees (which is not a humanitarian problem actually, but a solution); 9/8/15, 11:03 AM
Brando said...: "You mean like Korea or Germany where we still have troops ?"

I don't think Iraq can be compared to those two countries--it's a cobbled together collection of separatist nations with porous borders and a population often sympathetic to Islamic extremism. Staying there would mean not just a large military force but one that is in constant action hunting and fighting guerillas. Germany and South Korea didn't present those problems, and in the latter case we did rely on "strongmen" for a few decades before it became a democratic state.

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but what should we have done instead in Iraq post 2011? How many troops would we have had to keep there, and for how long? I doubt even Bush would have still kept troops there, considering his own timetable had us pulling out by now.

Frankly, the "install a dictator" option looks like the least bad alternative.

"Come on. the guerrilla war was just about over. The Bremer State Dept regime had fucked up the country and, yes, we should have left a strongman we could control in charge, Leaving meant no control at all."

It was winding down (certainly compared to 2003-6) but it wasn't completely over--and clearly there are still enough violent thugs running around that country. How many troops today would have prevented the recent trouble? 50,000? Twice that?; 9/8/15, 11:06 AM
Michael K said...: calls into question Bush and his staff moving from a "Remove Saddam" strategy (which was completely successful) into a nation building strategy.

Oh, I agree. Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks wanted to let the exiles run it and maybe some semi-competent Iraqi general but Bremer took over in Bush's worst decision.

I still don't understand Bush putting Bremer in charge when Garner had a good record with the Kurds.; 9/8/15, 11:10 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: William said...9/8/15, 10:20 AM

You wold think that Saddam is a low bar, and just about any replacement would be an improvement. But you would be wrong. Bush's bad. You would think that Quaddaffi would also be easy to improve on. Wrong again.

It's not wrong. The immediate effect was good, in both cases.

But there may be a general principle here. Overthrowing a government may create a free-for-all and an opportunity for somebody else worse, so you have to pay attention to what's happening later. A new democracy is actually somewhat unstable, although there nothing more stable than a well-established one. And the odds get worsse when you have foreign dictatorships interfering.; 9/8/15, 11:12 AM
Michael K said...: I doubt even Bush would have still kept troops there, considering his own timetable had us pulling out by now.

Frankly, the "install a dictator" option looks like the least bad alternative.

Yes. Bush was wrong about nation building but I thought Iraq was worth a try to see if Arabs could rule themselves without tyrants.

In a video presentation from Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer III informed the president and his aides that he was about to issue an order formally dissolving Iraq’s Army.

I think that decision probably lost the post-invasion war. The other puzzle that was not explained until the recent book, Days of Fire explained it, was why Bremer was put in place of Jay Garner, who had done well with the Kurds.

Garner began reconstruction efforts in March 2003 with plans aiming for Iraqis to hold elections within 90 days and for the U.S. to quickly pull troops out of the cities to a desert base. Talabani, a member of Jay Garner’s staff in Kuwait before the war, was consulted on several occasions to help the U.S. select a liberal Iraqi government; this would be the first liberal Government to exist in Iraq. In an interview with Time magazine, Garner stated that “as in any totalitarian regime, there were many people who needed to join the Baath Party in order to get ahead in their careers. We don’t have a problem with most of them. But we do have a problem with those who were part of the thug mechanism under Saddam. Once the U.S. identifies those in the second group, we will get rid of them.

Had Garner continued with that policy, we might have been out of the cities in a few months instead of years, as was the case with Bremer.

The Bremer decision was not as bad as Obama's decision to pull out but it was a major mistake by Bush.; 9/8/15, 11:15 AM
Achilles said...: "It was winding down (certainly compared to 2003-6) but it wasn't completely over--and clearly there are still enough violent thugs running around that country. How many troops today would have prevented the recent trouble? 50,000? Twice that?"

It took about 15000 Syrians in trucks with ak's on the ISIS side. My guess is it would have taken a couple of our platoons and air support backing up the Iraqi army.

39000, which is what we have had in south Korea for 60 years, would have been more than enough. Do you not understand how historically ignorant you are?; 9/8/15, 11:15 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: @Michael K

On the contrary, nation-building was actually what was necessary, and what wasn't done. Specifically, you had to destroy all would be dictatorships that would move into the power vacuum, especially when you had foreign powers intervening.

Foreign powers did not intervene in 1991, not Islamic ones and not Communists, so the Kurds came out all right, and had we liberated all of Iraq in 1991, that too would have turned out all right.; 9/8/15, 11:15 AM
Sammy Finkelman said...: You could make the argument:

"You would think that Czar was bad, and just about any replacement would be an improvement. But you would be wrong. You would think Imperial Germany and monarchy
was bad and just about anything else would be better.

But that argument is really wrong.; 9/8/15, 11:16 AM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "Hitler hated the communists and socialists..."

Yes, and the Mensheviks must have been capitalists for the Bolsheviks to attack them so!

Cookies intellectual dishonesty, apparent in so much of the standard issue Marxist-salon speak, is even more apparent in discussions of these types.

Here's an oldie but goodie about this written at a very "digestible" level of detail:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html; 9/8/15, 11:18 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Does Dick Cheney read Instapundit? He runs these links pretty frequently, as reminders, but Cheney's interview is the first time I've seen that truth asserted in the mainstream Media lately:

Instapundit: Democrats bragging about Iraq success; 9/8/15, 11:19 AM
Anonymous said...: "(Cook) claims Christian leaders killed more people than the socialists and then hides when confronted and asked to name those 'Christian leaders'."

I have no idea what you're referring to here.
--------------------------------------
Of course you don't cookie. All your propaganda, lies, and half-truths. You must get confused trying to keep them all straight. You just aren't smart enough to manage it.
You get your ass handed to you more often than a prospector with Alzheimer's at the livery stable.... and you just disappear because you know it.
Brave Sir Cookie.
FOAD; 9/8/15, 11:25 AM
Gahrie said...: we never won the war in Vietnam, either...

When the Vietnam War ended in 1973, South Vietnam still existed, the Viet Cong was totally destroyed, and the NVA was decimated. Two years later, after the North had rebuilt their army, they invaded South Vietnam again, and the Democrats refused to honor the commitments we had made to defend South Vietnam. We won the war, and lost the peace.; 9/8/15, 11:25 AM
Brando said...: "Yes. Bush was wrong about nation building but I thought Iraq was worth a try to see if Arabs could rule themselves without tyrants."

It was certainly well-intentioned--and I remember the arguments at the time that Iraq was more cosmopolitan than its neighbors and with the removal of Saddam there was a decent chance that democracy could take hold, and violence would dissipate. But it seems Iraq was a much tougher nut to crack than most people predicted.

Eventually, the Iraqis will determine their fate one way or another. But our ability to fix their problems is greatly exaggerated.; 9/8/15, 11:25 AM
Jaq said...: Robert Cook: "Hitler hated the communists and socialists..."

Yeah, and the communists assassinated Trotsky. What's your point?; 9/8/15, 11:28 AM
Jaq said...: Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants hated and killed each other for a long time, and outsiders couldn't tell them apart without a scorecard. Kind of like the fascists and the communists. Hint: Fascists had better tailors.; 9/8/15, 11:31 AM
Gahrie said...: Kind of like the fascists and the communists

The only real difference between the fascists and the communists is that the fascists were nationalists, and the communists were internationalists.; 9/8/15, 11:35 AM
Owen said...: KheSanh0802 said: "...Emma Sky in her book "The Unraveling" exposes one of the biggest problems in our management of Iraq: the rotation of competent military commanders who had a good understanding of, and good working relations with, the Iraqi leaders. These commanders were very successful in their AOR's, but because of the career path of the military they left when they were most sorely needed. It seems that because of the tribal nature of Iraq that personal relationships were critical to combined military /political success. Military leaders were at the forefront of establishing those relationships. Rotation destroyed the relationship and the trust."

Amen to that. I just read "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) and everything he did was based on personal trust. He was a great student of character and knew at a glance who was right or wrong for a job. Until he met Feisal he thought there was no chance for an Arab uprising, and even then he kept it going only with infinite care, cunning and (literally) tons of British gold. As soon as the battle was won, of course, it all came apart as the old feuds re-emerged amid the scramble for spoils (by the Western nations as well).

Winning the peace in such places is the hardest thing, I think.; 9/8/15, 11:37 AM
Big Mike said...: George W. Bush handed the Obama administration a victorious war, and the Obama administration went so far as to take the victory lap. What has happened in Iraq happened after Barack Obama and "Crazy Joe" Biden took that victory lap and bragged about "victory" in Iraq as though they had done anything.; 9/8/15, 11:50 AM
Brando said...: "The only real difference between the fascists and the communists is that the fascists were nationalists, and the communists were internationalists."

Even there it wasn't much of a distinction--every communist movement was pragmatic enough to use nationalist pride to advance their goals.

For all practical purposes, fascism and communism are the same thing--a totalitarian ideology that devalues the individual, the free market and the rule of law in favor of the state. Whether the state is a group of bureacrats fighting for the "people" or for a particular class makes no difference--you're either politically convenient and connected or you're ground to mush.

The real opposite poles are libertarianism and totalitarianism, with everything else somewhere in between.; 9/8/15, 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Cookie is already pretending to not be here.

Here is Cookie's Uncle Adolf from his autobiography 'Mein Kampf'
---------------------------------
'For the National Socialist union, therefore, a strike is a
measure which can and must be applied only as long as there
exists no National Socialist folkish State. The latter, how-
ever, has to take over instead of the mass struggle of the
two great groups employers and employees (which in its
consequences, by decrease of production, always injured the
national community as a whole!) the legal care and the
legal protection of all individuals. The economic chambers will
have to be entrusted with the obligation of keeping the
national economy going and of abolishing defects and faults
injurious to it. What today is fought out by a struggle of
millions must one day find its settlement in estate chambers
and in the central economic parliament. Thus the employers
and workers will no longer rage against one another in
wage and wage-scale battles, injuring the economic existence
of both of them, but they will solve these problems in com-
mon in a higher instance which above all has forever to
have before its eyes, in brilliant letters, the welfare of the
national community and of the State.'

Please tell me that that is not socialism. Show your work.; 9/8/15, 11:55 AM
MayBee said...: What do people think Bush should have done in Iraq, pre-2003?

The sanctions were being ignored by many of the same actors who are eager for us to lift Iranian sanctions. We were doing the no-fly zones to protect the Kurds, but it was just the UK and us. AlQaeda recruited members by pointing to our bases in Saudi Arabia. The international and American left claimed we were responsible for millions of Iraqi childrens' deaths because of the sanctions, and there was pressure to lift them.

Saddam was developing a nuclear program with Libya (we think. We know Libya was doing it) and the IAEA inspectors didn't know about it. Saddam was paying Palestinian suicide bombers' family, and there were a lot of them, then.

Do people have some great answer on what the beautiful path for Iraq was, that would have avoided all of this?; 9/8/15, 12:01 PM
tim maguire said...: In Wallace's defense, a journalist will sometimes ask a question he knows there's a perfectly good answer to because he wants the quote. Wallace may well have known that his question to Cheney was bunk and wanted to give Cheney the chance to call BS on him.; 9/8/15, 12:07 PM
damikesc said...: Cheney, as usual, is right. Obama was bragging about how great Iraq was going as recently as 2012.

Chris Wallace is. Fox News apparatchik. What do you expect.

With friends like Wallace, the GOP doesn't need enemies.

I have no beef with the question. I think the answer was spot-on.

It's probably fair to ask the Ronald Reagan question: Is the Middle East in better shape than it was seven years ago? The answer is most definitely NO. Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya are a mess; Europe is probably about to explode over the refugee issue; and we have essentially given Iran the okay to develop a nuclear weapon. What a mess!

And we know that Iran isn't the only power seeking to get nukes. Arabia will, undoubtedly, get them as well.

Hitler hated the communists and socialists, and put them in concentration camps, so any claims by on him on record that he or the Nazis were socialists must be considered in context of the time and circumstances in which he said it.(Shall we assume that tyrannical states calling themselves republics--China, Soviet Russia, Korea, etc.--are actually republics?)

Stalin did the same to "Trotskyites". Trotsky was, most assuredly, a Communist and not remotely a conservative.

How many of the modern Right hate the establishment at least as much as they despise the Democrats? You must win "your side" before turning to the actual foe.

Even there it wasn't much of a distinction--every communist movement was pragmatic enough to use nationalist pride to advance their goals.

Stalin didn't until Operation Barbarossa. He then hit the nationalist angle hard --- after pulling his head out of his ass at the start of the invasion. People want to discuss Bush's behavior on 9/11. It took Stalin over a week to do ANYTHING as Hitler was running thru the USSR.; 9/8/15, 12:12 PM
n.n said...: Premature evacuation from Iraq, and raping Libya and Syria, continue to pay dividends. As for the coupe in Ukraine, that was an indirect attack on Russia. Sit down and shut-up.; 9/8/15, 12:14 PM
tim maguire said...: Robert Cook said...Hitler hated the communists and socialists, and put them in concentration camps

Remember the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler wiped out his own brown-shirt supporters because they had become inconvenient to him? Does that mean he wasn't a Nazi? Hitler hated rivals for power and eliminated them however possible. He didn't much care about their particular beliefs. Don't forget, Stalin helped Hitler wipe out the Social Democrats. Nazis and Soviets were perfectly happy working together when it was to their advantage and perfectly happy killing each other when that was to their advantage.; 9/8/15, 12:17 PM
Brando said...: "What do people think Bush should have done in Iraq, pre-2003?"

It's a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking. In 2003, it seemed pretty clear that Saddam had an operative WMD program (based on U.S. and her allies' intelligence) and they calculated it wouldn't be long before he had some weapons and the means to deliver them, possibly via third parties. They also figured Saddam couldn't be bought off, and he had the will to attack us or his neighbors, and we couldn't risk it.

In hindsight, we were wrong--the WMD evidence turned out to be Saddam's attempt to bluff Iran, and perhaps we were wrong about whether Saddam could have been "turned" (Qadaffi, after 9/11, did start some detente with the U.S., until Obama decided it would be a good idea to overthrow him in 2011). Or if once we overthrew Saddam, we could have put some other dictator (maybe from the Iraqi military) in his place who could play ball. But like all counterfactuals we can speculate and argue but never prove, and only hope to learn from what actually happened for the next time.; 9/8/15, 12:20 PM
Brando said...: "Stalin didn't until Operation Barbarossa. He then hit the nationalist angle hard --- after pulling his head out of his ass at the start of the invasion. People want to discuss Bush's behavior on 9/11. It took Stalin over a week to do ANYTHING as Hitler was running thru the USSR."

Stalin was a uniquely terrible wartime leader, who basically had his entire massive army wiped out within weeks and only survived because the USSR was so damn big that he could afford to lose an army and still raise another one.

Nationalism is always used when convenient--even for communists. Similarly, even while communism in theory is not anti-semitic, communists will not hesitate to exploit antisemitism if certain inconvenient Jews (Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev) need to be eliminated.

The ideologies of Fascism and Communism are only tools for what they really stand for--a complete monopoly of power.; 9/8/15, 12:24 PM
Michael K said...: had we liberated all of Iraq in 1991, that too would have turned out all right.

I doubt it would have been any better. The Kurds got ten years to build a society that worked even though they are Muslims and have all the Muslim social pathology.

The "Marsh Arabs" would still be alive.

The coalition that Bush organized would have fallen apart.

Bush and Cheney and a lot of very smart people thought Saddam would be overthrown and, if Schwartzkopf had not fucked up big time and let the Iraqis have free rein to kill Shiites, he might have been. Stormin' Norman made a huge mistake although I don't know why Bush didn't have a smart FSO sitting on him to advise him what to do. The truce was too soon and too weak. The Iraqi generals could not believe he would let them off so easy.; 9/8/15, 12:33 PM
MayBee said...: exactly, Brando.

I just hate the pretend world so many anti-Bush 43 people seem to have manufactured, the world where Iraq was on a perfectly fine path and we went and blew it in 2003.

Qaddafi started detente, but it was us taking Saddam out that made him dismantle his nuclear program. And considering Iran's determination to get a bomb (and our apparent acceptance of that), do we think they would have given that up had Saddam stayed around? What would that arms race be looking like right now?

We can see Syria- which was the left's version of the good way to handle the region. A "reformer", "pro-west" strongman. And it isn't like we saw it coming. Anna Wintour's Vogue was writing love letters to Mrs Assad just a month before he started blatantly killing his own citizens (he'd been more discreet before that).

Obama is president now, and he's got to come up with a plan for now. Sure, he didn't have a perfect Iraq handed to him, but neither did GWB. And neither did Clinton. And so on.; 9/8/15, 12:36 PM
Brando said...: "Obama is president now, and he's got to come up with a plan for now. Sure, he didn't have a perfect Iraq handed to him, but neither did GWB. And neither did Clinton. And so on."

Obama's policy in the region is a bit schizophrenic--he campaigned as a critic of the Iraq War (not much of a profile in courage in 2007-8) but once in office stuck to Bush's withdrawal timetable, so clearly he wasn't in the "pull out ASAP" camp. Then, (while adding troops to Afghanistan) he tried to keep additional U.S. troops in Iraq and was only thwarted by Baghdad's refusal. He then drops a lot of bombs on Libya, giving support to the thugs who overthrew Quadaffi (and answered the question "who could be worse for Libya than Quadaffi?"), draws a "red line" in Syria, watches it get crossed by Assad, then accepts that Assad won't cross that red line a second time, and now is dropping bombs on Assad's enemies in the region--ISIS.

I guess in some way he thinks dropping some bombs here and there will help keep anyone from getting too powerful in the region, and it'll all stabilize until he leaves office and a more decisive leader can take over.

For my part I just don't see what we could really do to fix that region--short of a massive occupying force and constantly chasing down various enemies (most of whom are thrilled to have U.S. targets, as nothing helps street cred more than going at the biggest kid in town). Some disengagement may be our least bad option.; 9/8/15, 12:52 PM
MayBee said...: I've heard Obama's actions described as "following the path of least resistance" and I think that's a good descriptor.

I guess I would feel better if he would make a grand speech admitting he doesn't know WTF to do. What irritates me is him and his people pretending this was all inevitable, or it's under control, or he's doing the best that can be done, or whatever.
Or that he had some kind of grand vision in 2003 that would have kept this from happening.

But to hear people blaming Bush for the state of things now, or to hear Obama touting his Iran deal as some amazing deal, just irks. I want to hear him admit he doesn't know what to do, or, as you said, not do anything.
But he can't pretend to be some grand master diplomat AND not get "credit" for what's going on in the ME.; 9/8/15, 1:06 PM
robother said...: Has anyone ever heard a journalist ask Bill Clinton (on whose watch all of the 911 terrorists entered the country and took flight training) whether his administration bequeathed a mess to W. Bush?; 9/8/15, 1:12 PM
Brando said...: "Has anyone ever heard a journalist ask Bill Clinton (on whose watch all of the 911 terrorists entered the country and took flight training) whether his administration bequeathed a mess to W. Bush?"

Ha ha silly commenter, don't you know Clinton left Bush a booming economy (never mind the tech bubble bursting in 2000 followed by the stock market crash, or how Bush's team was blamed for "talking down the economy" when they mentioned the coming recession during their transition)? Don't you remember how Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at the terrorists after the embassy bombings in 1998, and we never had a problem with Bin Laden after that?

Don't worry, when Hillary takes over she'll have both Obama and Bush to blame for what I'm sure will be a long steak of disasters in her wake.; 9/8/15, 1:20 PM
cubanbob said...: Krumhorn said...
Oh, and by the way, Cook, we most certainly did win the Vietnam war. The NVA regulars were defeated. It was, as usual, the American left that beat us. I flew over Haiphong harbor with full loads of 250 and 500 lb bombs and 5" missiles in my A-4 as Russian ships below unloaded their cargo of arms. Under orders to leave them unmolested, I was forced to destroy some dangerous rice paddies and menacing Cong on rusty bikes instead.

My loathing of lefties knows no bounds.

- Krumhorn

9/8/15, 10:25 AM

Hats off to you sir. Personally if I had been in your cockpit I'm not so sure I would have had the military discipline to not have a 'malfunction' over Haiphong harbor. It must of been hell to shot at over perfectly legitimate targets just to risk your life to bomb worthless junk all the while knowing that what you were not allowed to destroy was being used to kill or maim our troops and our allies simply because the president was an asshole of the first order. Funny the Russians didn't have a problem in December of 72 when Nixon had enough and mined the harbors. Johnson truly snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory in 68 and the Democrats the ever reliable party of treason did so again in 75.

Say what you will about the Russians, they don't stab their allies in the back. Putin getting the Russians more involved in Syria is the best advertising they could possibly do to any country that is thinking about allying itself with the US. The Russians don't have to say a word to show they are standup guys and we are not. Our promises are only good at best for two Administrative terms until the next party takes over, especially if the promises were made by a Republican President. Thanks to Bill Clinton and his worthless nuclear deal with North Korea that was the template for the deal Obama made with the Iranians. I'm amazed that the South Koreans and the Japanese haven't nuked up yet. Or perhaps they have in secret. Pretty soon we will be reading that the Saudi's and the other Arab Gulf countries have gotten hold of nukes from their pals the Pakistanis.; 9/8/15, 1:20 PM
Big Mike said...: @Maybee, I agree wholeheartedly. And I'll add this caveat -- in 1974 Republicans had to choose between their party and president, and the people of the United States. They chose the people of the United States. Forty years later the Democrats almost unanimously choose their party and President Obama over the best interests of their constituents. I wonder whether that's why their numbers keep shrinking?; 9/8/15, 1:22 PM
Brando said...: "But to hear people blaming Bush for the state of things now, or to hear Obama touting his Iran deal as some amazing deal, just irks. I want to hear him admit he doesn't know what to do, or, as you said, not do anything.
But he can't pretend to be some grand master diplomat AND not get "credit" for what's going on in the ME."

It's no different than the economy--Obama has been doing smug "victory laps" about his wonderful economic recovery (never mind an alarmingly low labor force participation rate, or the fact that it took several years after the trough to get even to 6% unemployment) as though this was part of his master plan. What was that master plan, you ask? Passing the ACA (which only took effect years after the recovery was under way)? The "stimulus"? (Which was clever politically even if not economically--you could also publicly pray for a recovery, and then when you eventually get one you can say God answered your prayers. About as likely as the grab bag of political special favors and targeted tax tweaks that was the stimulus having that effect).

With the Middle-East, Obama saw a situation in 2009 that was to his advantage--the Arab Spring, overthrowing tyrannical (but stable!) governments across North Africa, possibly causing the overthrow of Assad and even leading to protests in Iran, plus U.S. troops on their way out of Iraq by Bush's timetable. All he'd have to do is sit back and reap the rewards bequeathed by Bush, that sucker!

Of course, it turned out to be much more complicated, and several years on some states are far less safe (Egypt, Libya), some are in a state of war (Syria, Iraq) and some are as oppressive as ever (Iran).; 9/8/15, 1:29 PM
Brando said...: "I'm amazed that the South Koreans and the Japanese haven't nuked up yet. Or perhaps they have in secret. Pretty soon we will be reading that the Saudi's and the other Arab Gulf countries have gotten hold of nukes from their pals the Pakistanis."

At this point I wonder if the only thing keeping any country from getting nukes is whether they have the will to acquire them. If Pakistan can get nukes, what's stopping Saudi Arabia or Egypt?

It's not really sovereign states being nuclear that is frightening--usually MAD keeps them from launching a first strike, and it can deter a conventional war (or at least a "total" conventional war) in many cases. But if enough parties have them, over time the chances of one getting loose and in the hands of a non-state actor increase.

It's impressive that we've gone 70 years without anyone using a nuclear weapon on anyone else. But I think the main reason for that is that for most of that time the weapons were only in the hands of a relatively small number of countries.; 9/8/15, 1:34 PM
MayBee said...: t's no different than the economy--Obama has been doing smug "victory laps" about his wonderful economic recovery (never mind an alarmingly low labor force participation rate

Ha! Yes! And he still fights (and is threatening to shut the government down over) the sequestration caps. But touts the lowering of the deficit!; 9/8/15, 1:42 PM
khesanh0802 said...: @Brando 12:52 I don't disagree that measured disengagement might be the answer in the MidEast. However that "disengagement" should be accompanied by a capable show of force around the periphery of the ME. Reduction in our military capabilities, particularly in the Navy, is not a good accompaniment to a pull back. There is not a trouble spot right now that is not in striking difference from the Med or the Persian Gulf -and I include the Ukraine. We could apply a lot of pressure with a significant naval build up without the risk of putting "boots on the ground". (As part of that build up I DO include Marine Expeditionary forces.); 9/8/15, 1:54 PM
Gahrie said...: "I'm amazed that the South Koreans and the Japanese haven't nuked up yet.

The South Koreans really don't have anybody to but one from (Not even the French sell nukes) and the Japanese will probably never have nukes.

But I fully expect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to buy a couple from the Pakistanis.; 9/8/15, 2:10 PM
Steve said...: Gahrie,

Saudi's are widely regarded as having bankrolled the Pakistani nukes for just such an emergency. http://www.rt.com/news/259565-saudi-pakistan-nuclear-weapons/

The Japanese could probably have nukes in a month if they wanted them. And as soon as the American nuclear umbrella is lifted from the land of the rising sun they will want them.; 9/8/15, 2:22 PM
JPS said...: Michael K, about Bremer:

I hold no brief for the man, but I still think the blaming of Bremer for the insurgency can be overdone, not that you're necessarily doing so here. Iraq is of course majority Shia. The Sunni-dominated Baathist army was for decades a major instrument of their repression and mass murder. I think if we had simply decided it was a handy instrument to pacify the country, and kept key leaders in place, we would have seen a Shiite insurgency to dwarf the Sunni insurgency we did face. (Indeed, as it was we faced a nontrivial Shiite insurgency in the form of the Jaish al Mahdi, etc.); 9/8/15, 3:18 PM
JPS said...: Gahrie,

"The South Koreans really don't have anybody to [buy a nuke] from"

No, but they have a nuclear program and capable engineers. I forget from whom I'm stealing this (who was referring to Japan), but I've always assumed they're about four turns of a wrench from having one, anytime they decide our security guarantees aren't worth what they once were.; 9/8/15, 3:19 PM
cubanbob said...: Big Mike said...
@Maybee, I agree wholeheartedly. And I'll add this caveat -- in 1974 Republicans had to choose between their party and president, and the people of the United States. They chose the people of the United States. Forty years later the Democrats almost unanimously choose their party and President Obama over the best interests of their constituents. I wonder whether that's why their numbers keep shrinking?

9/8/15, 1:22 PM"

i used to think that. Not anymore. Considering that Democrats were riddled with Communists and Soviet sympathizers they weren't wrong about what they were looking for. Perhaps history would have turned out differently and to the better if Nixon had not resigned, burned the tapes and told the Democrats to piss off. Would South Vietnam have fallen if Nixon had been president in 75? Would Castro's great African adventure happened if Nixon had been president? If Nixon had been more like a Democrat-you know like Obama with his smears and releasing of embarrassing information on a number of Democrats I wonder if all that noise of impeachment would have been all that-noise. Hillary has done far worse and so far nothing. Obama has done far worse and so far nothing. Nixon in retrospect is far better than any Democrat since Truman and the Republicans in retrospect did the country a huge disfavor in pushing him out.; 9/8/15, 3:36 PM
cubanbob said...: " Gahrie said...
"I'm amazed that the South Koreans and the Japanese haven't nuked up yet.

The South Koreans really don't have anybody to but one from (Not even the French sell nukes) and the Japanese will probably never have nukes.

But I fully expect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to buy a couple from the Pakistanis.

9/8/15, 2:10 PM"

Both countries have the industrial capability and technical knowhow to nuke up quickly if they believe they need to.; 9/8/15, 3:38 PM
damikesc said...: No, but they have a nuclear program and capable engineers. I forget from whom I'm stealing this (who was referring to Japan), but I've always assumed they're about four turns of a wrench from having one, anytime they decide our security guarantees aren't worth what they once were.

Our security guarantees aren't worth shit. I wouldn't trust us to help if a problem occurs.; 9/8/15, 4:05 PM
OGWiseman said...: What a crock. Translation: "If we project our best-case scenarios onto a long enough timeline, without reference to cost or political reality, Iraq would have not been a disaster. This means that Obama/the Left's cowardice lost the war and ruined everything."

We spent a decade trying to create an actual, functional country in Iraq, and--despite trillions of dollars and thousands of lives--we never came close. Just like Vietnam, we won military victories aplenty but never even got within a whiff of controlling the political or cultural situation. It's like trying to make a spiderweb with a baseball bat.

Iraq was always going to turn into a brushfire when we left after destroying the dictatorship that had barely held it together with terror and violence. There was never any other outcome. Obama, et al should not have sounded the triumphalist notes they occasionally did, but bravo to them for getting it over with and not throwing good blood and treasure after bad.; 9/8/15, 4:36 PM
Achilles said...: OGWiseman said...
What a crock. Translation: "If we project our best-case scenarios onto a long enough timeline, without reference to cost or political reality, Iraq would have not been a disaster. This means that Obama/the Left's cowardice lost the war and ruined everything."

What a crock indeed. We will totally ignore history so we don't have to take responsibility for pulling out and causing a genocide and open sex slave markets! South Korea, Japan and Europe were total aberrations. Look at Vietnam, where we pulled out because of leftist pressure, because QUAGMIRE!

Cowards like you don't deserve the freedom you take for granted.; 9/8/15, 4:50 PM
cubanbob said...: damikesc said...
No, but they have a nuclear program and capable engineers. I forget from whom I'm stealing this (who was referring to Japan), but I've always assumed they're about four turns of a wrench from having one, anytime they decide our security guarantees aren't worth what they once were.

Our security guarantees aren't worth shit. I wouldn't trust us to help if a problem occurs.

9/8/15, 4:05 PM"

The French came to that conclusion 60 years ago. After Suez De Gaulle never believed the Americans would sacrifice Chicago for Paris. He assumed the the Soviets wouldn't lose Moscow and Leningrad to destroy France and then still have to deal with the US from a much weaker place. Can't say I find fault in his reasoning. What makes Iran different from the Communists at the height of the Cold War even from the madman in North Korea is only the Iranians have ever publicly stated that is their goal to destroy another country simply because it exists. Despite our resident Communist commenter RC denying that we are dealing with another level on crazy with respects to Iran. Pakistan is bad enough simply because of its instability and the possibility of Pakistani weapons getting into the hands of terrorists.; 9/8/15, 5:36 PM
Big Mike said...: @cubanbob, a different way of looking at it. Thanks for the insight.; 9/8/15, 5:36 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: William said on 9/8/15 @ 10:20 AM CDT:

Hillary's bad...

Don't go there! I see you didn't actually.

Anyway, I'd rather start like this:

"Donald Trump is bad.." (but you could get Hillary); 9/8/15, 9:40 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: cubanbob said...

What makes Iran different from the Communists at the height of the Cold War even from the madman in North Korea is only the Iranians have ever publicly stated that is their goal to destroy another country simply because it exists.

If South Korea is considered a separate counry, this is North Korea's ultimate policy goal, too.

Iran is different because is has been more reckless and ambitious (although North Korea has bene pretty reckless at times, too)

They were ready to explode a car bomb in Washington D.C. (or whatever their imagaination told them the plan of the notional Mexicn drug gang was to kill the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States)

Pakistan is bad enough simply because of its instability and the possibility of Pakistani weapons getting into the hands of terrorists.

The terrorist sponsors in the Pakistani military are not ready to officially take over Pakistan.; 9/8/15, 9:46 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: @Brando.

Iran could destroy MAD, or out it to the test.; 9/8/15, 9:48 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Brando said...

It's impressive that we've gone 70 years without anyone using a nuclear weapon on anyone else. But I think the main reason for that is that for most of that time the weapons were only in the hands of a relatively small number of countries.

That's probably the reason. There's a low probability of a country using them per year or decade, (some countrie less than others) but it adds up.

And we came semi-close. Mao was tempted to use them. Come to think of, China, in fact, today be encouraging some other country to go first. There are people in the PLA that keep on mentioning the idea of using it.; 9/8/15, 9:52 PM
MayBee said...: Iran and North Korea are working together on nukes, no?; 9/8/15, 10:04 PM
Gahrie said...: Do the japanese have the ability to build nukes? Sure. Do they have the will?; 9/8/15, 11:53 PM
jr565 said...: The ME right now is what peace looks like when we withdraw all involvement. It looks a lot like war.; 9/9/15, 4:47 AM
jr565 said...: Drago wrote:
And that is never going to change. We can argue the pros and cons all day. But it is what it is and given that reality, it seriously calls into question Bush and his staff moving from a "Remove Saddam" strategy (which was completely successful) into a nation building strategy.

if you take out the regime you kind of have to nation build. Otherwise you just create a vacuum to be filled by the next strongest group to seize power.
It's not enough to take out the despot you also have to create a stable environment. Which Bush in fact did, by keeping troops there. Maliki turned out to be a terrible leader who undermined the sunni's. But look at how he was removed. Through a democratic process, without violence. That may be the best we can expect from Iraq, but compared to sadaams Iraq, it's night and day. What caused Iraq to fractured by violence was an invasion by ISIS. They saw weakness because it was quite clear that Iraq wasn't ready to take control of its own security.
If we had troops there, Isis wouldn't have invaded. And if they did, we wouldn't be talking about ISIS now, except in the past tense.; 9/9/15, 4:56 AM
Rusty said...: jr565 said...
The ME right now is what peace looks like when we withdraw all involvement. It looks a lot like war

Who could have possibly guessed, right?; 9/9/15, 10:21 AM
Rick said...: Robert Cook said...
We never won the war in Iraq...we just illegally overthrew a government

I guess we can add "illegal" to the long list of words that now mean "things I hate" along with fascist, racist, and anything that ends in phobe.; 9/10/15, 12:05 PM