Althouse: Finally, a political cartoon of some value.

September 29, 2015

Finally, a political cartoon of some value.

Nice style and content, by Patrick Chappatte.

69 comments:

Known Unknown said...: Clint Eastwood, call your office!; 9/29/15, 10:42 AM
Michael K said...: I'm starting to think we will be better off with Putin taking this role. Obama can't run the guest list at a White House dinner. Syria will be a test for Russia and I'm not sure they are up to it. The risk is that eastern Europe may start to see Putin as a protector from the Islamic horde.

I am not optimistic after the Obama era and fear worse, a lot worse, is to come.; 9/29/15, 10:43 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: The decision to omit those green marble tiles comes as most welcome.; 9/29/15, 10:49 AM
Jaq said...: LOL... in a gallows sort of way.

Leave the ME to Putin. Let's get out of there completely. Putin will keep them from stirring up more trouble than he needs at any given time for his own ambitions.

What they don't want is to be limited to ports in the Arctic Ocean again, as they were in the Great Patriotic War. Let 'em have it. Let 'em have the ME oil too. We have our own oil now. Let the seekers of Abu Ali have Germany. Fuck 'em all. Anybody fucks with us, we pour on the military force not until they surrender, or until we build a new nation, but until a sufficient example has been may pour decourager les autres.; 9/29/15, 10:59 AM
Jaq said...: Of course if Putin is going to take over the oil fields, we are going to have to build Keystone XL, that's called "waging peace" you know, keeping yourself in a position where you can turn down a war?; 9/29/15, 11:01 AM
Ctmom4 said...: In the NY Times? I am shocked!; 9/29/15, 11:04 AM
Jim Gust said...: What does it mean that this is in the NYTimes?; 9/29/15, 11:17 AM
mikee said...: In the NY Times, wet dreams edition, this cartoon makes perfect sense.

There is nothing the NY Times editors and staff would like more, than for the US to be taken down a notch or two. If that requires having a Russian dictator take over our Middle Eastern foreign policy failures, with all the future genocide and disastrous side effects that entails, then the NY Times is willing to pay that price.

The omelet will be made even with a plenitude of broken eggs, because the NY Times wants that omelet, dammit. And they are gonna get it, good and hard.; 9/29/15, 11:20 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: It's funny because it's true.

It's also very sad because it's true. Since the Cold War we had successfully kept USSR / Russia from gaining a permanent foothold in the Middle East. All the Sanders types that hate our foreign policy of propping up and maintaining powerful figures in the region (Saudis, Egyptians, Libyans, Israelis, Jordanians, Turks) fail to see the danger in leaving a power vacuum there. Now we all see what happens when the USA retreats hastily.

Remember the Iraq War was over and we had won. Biden and Obama and Hillary all said so in 2010. The Obama bailed on the SOFA in 2011. Then Hillary "came...saw...killed" Qaddafi the same year. After the Red Line and lame feints at ISIS the world could see a gaping hole in our foreign policy.

Putin ain't no dummy. He is on the ground taking ACTION while our speechifier-in-chief makes his disconnected rambling lectures to deaf ears on the UN. Our number one geopolitical foe is now leading from the front in the Middle East.

Heckuva job, Barry! And the stink's on Hillary! as well.; 9/29/15, 11:40 AM
traditionalguy said...: Interestingly, the cast of characters in various Hebrew Prophecies of future events always includes invasion of Jerusalem by a great Armed force coming from the North, but no mention is made of any Americans. Putin's Russian Empire 2.0 is right on time.

The Russians have always seen themselves as the successor to Rome's Empire through the Eastern Branch.; 9/29/15, 11:54 AM
Larry J said...: This is what happens when a US president decides to "lead from behind." It's also known as a power vacuum. In the military, we used to say, "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." Obama can't lead, won't follow, so he got out of the way. We're seeing the results of that.; 9/29/15, 11:57 AM
Sebastian said...: True, the cartoon has "some value." But it misrepresents O as being put off by the Vlad the Usurper.

O is OK with it. His MO is taking down the US. Vlad helps.; 9/29/15, 12:00 PM
Unknown said...: The cartoon is clearly racist as is the cartoonist and ny times...and now the professor. All racists; 9/29/15, 12:03 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Larry did Obama really "get out of the way"?

I think his fake Syrian freedom force (now up to the grand total of 4 or 5 fighters) and the distressingly low volume of arms supplied to the Kurds and his encouragement of Iran all did get in the way of success by attempting to create the appearance of action. Obama accomplished a transfer of billions in American materiel to ISIS and Al Queda. That's definitely "in the way" of success for anyone attempting really fight these thugs.; 9/29/15, 12:07 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: I love winger love for Putin.; 9/29/15, 12:16 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Remember the Iraq War was over and we had won. Biden and Obama and Hillary all said so in 2010. The Obama bailed on the SOFA in 2011."

What do you mean Obama "bailed on the SOFA...?" Don't you mean he withdrew our troops as required by the SOFA? Do you forget or don't you know that Obama wanted to keep our troops there--more shame on him--and that he wanted to renegotiate the SOFA to extend our stay, but the Iraqis' necessary condition for allowing our troops to remain was that our troops be subject to prosecution by the Iraqi justice system if they were charged with breaking Iraqi laws? Obama, forgetting that Iraq is supposedly a sovereign nation, considered this condition unreasonable and wouldn't agree to it...and so the SOFA was not renegotiated and we were shown the door.

And, if we "won," why would we need to keep our troops there any longer anyway?; 9/29/15, 12:22 PM
Lyssa said...: Apt. This is what I always say when people complain about the US trying to run things/be the world police/etc. It's always going to be someone. If it's not us, the potential someones are pretty much Russia or China. Wouldn't you rather it be us?; 9/29/15, 12:24 PM
Robert Cook said...: BTW...the cartoon is banal and not well-drawn. For political cartoons worth reading--and looking at, as they're beautifully drawn--there's no one better than Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.; 9/29/15, 12:27 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Cook, if Obama "wanted to renegotiate the SOFA to extend our stay" then he should have done it. He didn't because he is the worlds worst negotiator (see Iran Deal 2015) and HE WANTED TROOPS OUT. That was a promise he meant to keep, the consequences be damned. He said it over and over and then he saw his excuse to bail when the Iraqis asked for changes.

I notice you cherry pick topics there too. Because you cannot avoid the fact that all three of those idiots (Obama, Biden, Hillary) bragged about how awesome things were in Iraq in 2010. There was always going to be TBD parts of the SOFA but it required statesmanship. A quality missing from the current admin. Somehow the USA has managed to keep a base in Cuba, troops along the DMZ, and all manner of small forces around the MENA but not in Iraq because...

Well why? Why exactly did Obama fail to fix the SOFA? You claim it was just too hard to counter the Iraqi opposition. Funny but Iran and now Russia prove that there is a way to deal with Iraq. So yes, my informed and astute take is based on the complete record of failure by Obama, as opposed to the excellent circumstances that GWB left Iraq in, in 2009. Obama's weakness and carelessness (in all its meanings) is the key to the chaos in MENA today.; 9/29/15, 12:38 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Cook: And, if we "won," why would we need to keep our troops there any longer anyway?

[Sigh] You may ask the same thing of the DMZ, Germany, Japan, and our various bases across Europe. The blindingly obvious answer is that THIS IS HOW YOU KEEP THE PEACE.

Why are commies so fucking dense!; 9/29/15, 12:40 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Great cartoon that highlights the stupidity and weakness of Obama. Nature loves a vacuum. Expect to see even more provocative acts in the next year by Russia, China, Iran, etc. as the age to Obama stumbles to its inevitably feckless end.; 9/29/15, 12:42 PM
J. Farmer said...: Oh please. Was the seat empty when the Russians sent tanks into Hungary or Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan or Georgia? Newsflash, folks. We're not going to war with Russia for one very important reason: ICBM's.; 9/29/15, 1:03 PM
Scott said...: The cartoon is from the "International New York Times," which used to be the International Herald Tribune before Pinch Sulzberger decided to show us all once again that he is a blinkered and blithering idiot.; 9/29/15, 1:04 PM
Original Mike said...: "Do you forget or don't you know that Obama wanted to keep our troops there--more shame on him--and that he wanted to renegotiate the SOFA to extend our stay,..."

Bullshit.; 9/29/15, 1:46 PM
Michael K said...: "Don't you mean he withdrew our troops as required by the SOFA?"

Cookie, you don't need to prove how stupid you are. Everyone here knows it.

Obama wanted to get out just as he opposed the war from the start. Kerry and Clinton voted yes because they are politicians, no matter how incompetent. After 9/11 Bush had to do something and we can debate whether the invasion of Iraq was wise. That's a fair question as long as the debaters don't ry to select their own facts.

To try to make that dead bird of yours fly, you have to lie and prevaricate. It just doesn't make you look intelligent.; 9/29/15, 2:21 PM
Fen said...: "Don't you mean he withdrew our troops as required by the SOFA?"

Cook, the accomplished diplomat, saunters into the car dealership. Is shocked by the sticker prices.

Cook: "No way I am paying that much"
Salesman: "What if I cut -"
Cook: "I'm outta here!" [storms off]

Cook knows how SOFAs are negotiated. He's just playing his usual sophist game. He has zero intellectual integrity, which is why I don't take him seriously.; 9/29/15, 2:45 PM
Hagar said...: The tsars did not make it to the Mediterranean; the soviets could not do it, but now Vladimir IV has made it, and he is not leaving.

The Turks have to be very worried about this, and the danger is that the Syrians shoot down a Turkish plane, and the Turks retaliate, but gets a Russian one. Or something like that.
And so it begins.

BTW, Turkey is a member of NATO. Not a dearly beloved one, but a member nevertheless.; 9/29/15, 2:46 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Michael K:

"After 9/11 Bush had to do something and we can debate whether the invasion of Iraq was wise."

The Bush administration wanted a long-term, residual troop presence in Iraq. And they were unable to get Iraqi acquiescence to such a deal. Why do you think that is?; 9/29/15, 2:48 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Hagar:

"The tsars did not make it to the Mediterranean; the soviets could not do it, but now Vladimir IV has made it, and he is not leaving."

The Russians have had a naval facility in Tartus since the early 1970s.; 9/29/15, 2:50 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: The current President campaigned on the promise of Change and talked about the need to fundamentally transform the nation. People voted for him and presumably for that.
Mission accomplished, I guess.; 9/29/15, 3:02 PM
Hagar said...: So they have, though a modest one.

Now they are also at Latakia, in force with aircraft and support infantry. Not to mention in "cooperation" with Assad's Syria and Iran/Iraq to "fight their common enemy."

This is a whole different proposition.; 9/29/15, 3:10 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: J. Farmer said...
Oh please. Was the seat empty when the Russians sent tanks into Hungary or Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan or Georgia? Newsflash, folks. We're not going to war with Russia for one very important reason: ICBM's.

With respect, J. Farmer, that view is overly simplistic w/r/t what foreign policy can accomplish. You're correct that we're extremely unlikely to "go to war" with Russia over anything other than a direct threat, but it's silly to pretend that our only options (for action) are either all out war or nothing. There are a number of actions we can take directly and indirectly to influence the behavior of other nations. Presidents choose which actions to take (or not take).
Russia's sphere of influence has seemingly expanded under this President's tenure. No one is arguing that the US should have (or would have under a different president) gone to war to prevent this, but it's not therefore true that nothing at all could have been done (or that this result was inevitable).; 9/29/15, 3:10 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Rush was saying that Putin is more sensible than bho. For example putin's speach had anti-abortion comments.

After W, you'd think cons would figure out that this guy knows how to play them.; 9/29/15, 3:29 PM
Hagar said...: Someone noted that Obama five years ago advised Mr. Putin on the proper running of the Russian Federation. He is very disappointed that Mr. Putin has not taken his advise and may well unfriend him on Facebook if he keeps it up.; 9/29/15, 3:57 PM
Michael K said...: "And they were unable to get Iraqi acquiescence to such a deal. Why do you think that is?"

Would you like that answer in one word ?

Obama; 9/29/15, 4:03 PM
Robert Cook said...: "You may ask the same thing of the DMZ, Germany, Japan, and our various bases across Europe. The blindingly obvious answer is that THIS IS HOW YOU KEEP THE PEACE."

A war that is truly "won" does not need an occupying military to "keep the peace."

Our bases around the world are not to "keep the peace," but to maintain strategic positions of control. We have, since WWII, been determined to rule the world.; 9/29/15, 4:55 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...the excellent circumstances that GWB left Iraq in, in 2009...."

Oh my god. I think you actually believe that.; 9/29/15, 5:01 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: If Russia is the serious national security threat that some hear pretend to believe, wouldn't Putin idolatry be fairly considered treasonous?; 9/29/15, 5:04 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "We have, since WWII, been determined to rule the world."

Any yet, this cartoon and cons tell us that all we needed to do to rule the world is to put a relatively minuscule number of troops into a neighboring country that used to be under our control and, in some parts, still has over 60% self identified Americans, plus we commit a small force to fight Muslim terrorists in a country where we already have military bases.

Apparently we don't rule the world because we do too much. The cons are certain that Russia has out maneuvered us by not being involved in massive interventions, like we are. As sure as one plus one equals two, cons say that, according to the Russian model, we should do much less in the world in order to rule the world. Then cons will be less scared and insecure about shortcomings. In other words, elect our own Putin. Make America Great Again! If that doesn't happen, I hear that driving a big, jacked up truck can help y'all feel better.; 9/29/15, 5:25 PM
Nichevo said...: Sandwich, do keep up the gibberish. It's better when we needn't pretend you are trying to make sense.

ARM, re "idolatry," is it even worth your time to try that one?; 9/29/15, 5:34 PM
Jacinto said...: I remember reading interviews with both the U.S. and Iraqi negotiators re: SOFA extension: The U.S. side said they keep asking but they never got guidance from Washington and they got the distinct impression that Washington was not interested. The Iraqi side said that after their rejection of the initial U.S. proposal, they were expecting but never got another U.S. proposal. Bottom line: both sides of the table came to realize that Washington was just not that interested in extending SOFA.; 9/29/15, 5:35 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Jacinto,

1) That recollection is absurd. Even at the end of Ws years the Iraqis were snubbing us for Iran. They wanted to take their democratically earned power and F-over their historic enemies. Sorting out a fair oil deal and having Americans hanging around weren't on their agenda.

2) I really hope that all the cons, who claim that a lingering force of 10,000 Amercians would have reordered Iraq, are only spewing this BS because they're trying to win political points against BHO. No doubt, some of you probably agreed that taking over Iraq was going to be a cake walk. You know, we'd be welcomed as liberators, and so on. But, you can't really still believe that it's that easy? Right?; 9/29/15, 5:49 PM
Michael K said...: "We have, since WWII, been determined to rule the world."

You just crack me up. Keep it up ! And for heaven's sake don't take those medicines they keep trying to get you to take.

Ritmo is not worth responding to and not nearly as entertaining as you are, Cookie.; 9/29/15, 5:53 PM
Jacinto said...: FWIW I initially supported the Iraqi invasion but have come to realize it was a mistake.; 9/29/15, 5:56 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Obviously, Re: Iraq, Obama was showing the same high level of foreign policy skills he used in bringing peace to Libya and Syria, and in taming the Russian bear.
The most embarrassing thing for Obama supporters must be the fact that he majored in foreign policy at Columbia. Well, that or his appointment of a pair of Iraq War supporters to be his secretaries of state.; 9/29/15, 6:01 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "FWIW I initially supported the Iraqi invasion but have come to realize it was a mistake."

One can see how it'd be easy to assume that invading Iraq would be easy. The first Bush did make the first Gulf War (technically this was the second Gulf war because we used to call the Iran-Iraq war the Gulf War) look like cake. He had the Brass that learned about war through the Vietnam experience, so they were wise. Ironically, their success made it easy to assume that it couldn't be too much harder to "go all the way."

Sure, Shinseki and others weren't fooled, but many smart folks were.

I just hope that all the current con bluster is only meant to take shots at BHO, rather than being some sort of base on which actionable policy should be built. For this reason it's encouraging to see cons get all pro-Putiny when Putin hasn't done a tiny fraction of a fraction of what the US does. Presumably, cons just want a blusterer, w/ an R attached to them. Reagan's complete backtrack and retreat as a response to Iranian backed terrorists who killed hundreds of Americans shows that cons don't believe their own BS. OTOH, some of current cons are either really good at hiding their common sense, or (unlike Reagan) they don't have it.; 9/29/15, 6:21 PM
Hagar said...: I read last week that the Baltic states got upset because they heard that Russia had told Belarus they wanted to establish a major military base in Belarus. The White Russians went ah-ah-err about that, and the Great Russians said they misunderstood - they were not being asked, they were being told.

I have to admit that I do not understand Russia and Iran buddying up. In the mullahs' view, the Russians had ought to be the next to greatest Satan.
Anybody have any thoughts?; 9/29/15, 6:28 PM
Nichevo said...: Yes, Hagar. In the words of Ayn Rand:

"This is the great, formal, nose-counting event, where the victims come in order to show how safe it is to destroy them, and destroyers form pacts of eternal friendship, which lasts for three months."
(Atlas Shrugged, p.407, Francisco D'Anconia); 9/29/15, 6:42 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "Anybody have any thoughts?"

The cons will find this hard to imagine, but these moves are out of weakness. Assad isn't doing well, and the status of Russia's existing Syrian foothold (i.e. base) could be uncertain. They need to make sure that who/what-ever comes after Assad isn't going to be a problem for their base, which is strategically critical for them in the region.

They're acting out of desperation so their little footprint doesn't turn into no footprint. But, don't tell the cons, they're having too much fun worshiping Putin power.; 9/29/15, 6:51 PM
Jacinto said...: I accept that W was smart enough to know that in order to make a real impact in changing the ME, we will have to stay in Iraq for a while like we did in Japan and South Korea. He also had to know that this "program" has to be continued by the administration following him. My problem is his seeming inability to anticipate or at least consider the fact that the following administration will completely squander all the hard fought gains and sacrifices made toward his view of a more stable ME.; 9/29/15, 7:00 PM
Sprezzatura said...: Jacinto,

You forgot Germany.

Anywho, in all three examples the fighting ended well short of either of our activities in Afghanistan or Iraq. Is that worth noting, in your opinion? Does that indicate that these three examples are different than the current two?

And, why not add Vietnam to the mix?

If you must make a comparison to history, doesn't it make more sense to point to East Germany, Vietnam, and North Korea. That is, after a reasonable amount of fighting, and then for different reasons in each situation, we didn't get these countries to capitulate to us, so we left them to themselves. The current con argument suggests that we should have kept on fighting in Vietnam, North Korea and East Germany until we turned them into Japan, even though this requires us to forget that Japan was overcome in a much shorter time period than our current commitments.

As I've stated before, I hope y'all don't believe your own BS.; 9/29/15, 7:18 PM
Sprezzatura said...: OTOH, it is true that we did unleash much more destruction on Korea, Vietnam, Germany, and Japan.

And, the biggest success was Japan. Unlike North Korea, Vietnam and East Germany American Values prevailed. So, by this sort of historical reference, the key to winning is nukes. Are cons here in favor of electing a president who would like to nuke our adversaries?

HRC wanted to obliterate Iran. Is she your gal?; 9/29/15, 7:23 PM
Rusty said...: tim in vermont said...
LOL... in a gallows sort of way.

Leave the ME to Putin. Let's get out of there completely. Putin will keep them from stirring up more trouble than he needs at any given time for his own ambitions.

If Putin controls the middle east then he controls the flow of oil to europe and by extension he controls europe.; 9/29/15, 7:33 PM
Sprezzatura said...: "If Putin controls the middle east then he controls the flow of oil to europe and by extension he controls europe."

The lib-enviros should reframe renewable energy dogma as an anti-Russian and anti-Muslim strategy. In other words, you want an ME strategy: it's F-em, nobody needs their oil, they can live in the dark ages as much as they want, instead of going to Europe, even Africa will seem like a major upgrade for the non-braindead folks trying to get out.; 9/29/15, 7:43 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: The party of segregation, internment camps, firebombing cities and dropping nukes on civilians accuses conservatives of being racists who only want to shove people in internment camps, go to war, and drops nukes on people.; 9/29/15, 9:42 PM
Original Mike said...: "Our bases around the world are not to "keep the peace," but to maintain strategic positions of control."

What the hell's the difference? Seriously. What the hell is the difference?; 9/29/15, 10:19 PM
Achilles said...: PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
Jacinto,

"And why not add Vietnam to the mix?"

Please do. Progressives chose to lose Vietnam. Just like they chose to lose in Iraq. and it turned out very badly for Vietnamese and Iraqi's.

"If you must make a comparison to history, doesn't it make more sense to point to East Germany, Vietnam, and North Korea. That is, after a reasonable amount of fighting, and then for different reasons in each situation, we didn't get these countries to capitulate to us, so we left them to themselves. The current con argument suggests that we should have kept on fighting in Vietnam, North Korea and East Germany until we turned them into Japan, even though this requires us to forget that Japan was overcome in a much shorter time period than our current commitments."

Japan was overcome because our goal was victory. The US was united in this goal. Starting in Korea and certainly by Vietnam we had a fully formed marxist 5th column. Japan was far more difficult an opponent than Vietnam. We had the Vietnam war won militarily as the Vietcong leaders have admitted. There are just a bunch of people in the US that don't want us to win.

"As I've stated before, I hope y'all don't believe your own BS."

As I've stated before, the left wants the world to be more like North Korea and less like South Korea.; 9/29/15, 11:44 PM
Achilles said...: PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"The lib-enviros should reframe renewable energy dogma as an anti-Russian and anti-Muslim strategy. In other words, you want an ME strategy: it's F-em, nobody needs their oil, they can live in the dark ages as much as they want, instead of going to Europe, even Africa will seem like a major upgrade for the non-braindead folks trying to get out."

Everyone would love to have renewable energy. But the retards supporting government subsidies for it are just making a bunch of super wealthy people super wealthier. We need to be focusing on development, not implementation. The technology just isn't there yet. But you people are too stupid and gullible to notice that.; 9/29/15, 11:51 PM
Robert Cook said...: "'Our bases around the world are not to "keep the peace," but to maintain strategic positions of control.'

"What the hell's the difference? Seriously. What the hell is the difference?"

God...don't be so obtuse.

What's the difference between your local police keeping a visible presence on the streets of your town to protect you and your family and your neighbors against the possibility of crime or calamity--to serve you--in other words, or their keeping a visible presence to surveil you and your family and your neighbors, to insure you and your family and neighbors don't step out of line, to guarantee they are there to put the boot in when they (or their paymasters) determine it is time? What's the difference between the police being a bulwark against crime and their being perpetrators of crime?

You left out the crucial second part of my statement, that our military bases are intended as positions of strategic control as part of our post-WWII ambition to rule the world? There's quite a difference between serving as a sentinel against danger and serving as a guard dog for those who would rule the world.; 9/30/15, 6:50 AM
Scott said...: BTW nice avatar Cookie.; 9/30/15, 9:17 AM
Gahrie said...: The current con argument suggests that we should have kept on fighting in Vietnam, North Korea and East Germany until we turned them into Japan

No...the Conservative argument is that we should have fought to win in Vietnam and Korea instead of tying our own hands behind our back.

We never fought in East Germany. Whether we should have fought against the Soviets in East Germany is a whole other question. I tend to be on the side of Churchill and Patton on that issue.; 9/30/15, 11:35 AM
Gahrie said...: We have, since WWII, been determined to rule the world.

Frankly, I wish this had been true.

The world would be a much more peaceful place, and everyone would have a much higher standard of living and more individual freedom.; 9/30/15, 11:44 AM
Darrell said...: Obama had more flexibility after the election.; 9/30/15, 12:40 PM
J. Farmer said...: Lost in all this useless, meaningless analogizing to the Second World War and the Cold War is what our current strategic interests are and how best to go about achieving those interests. We have been pursuing an absolutely schizophrenic policy in Syria, simultaneously trying to bring Assad down which simultaneously trying to destroy the Islamic insurgency that invariably pops up in every place state authority has fallen apart. A more coherent policy would be to assist Assad in keeping his state together and keeping a lid on revolutionary forces. What good is conservatism if not to remind one to always be highly skeptical of revolutions?; 9/30/15, 12:50 PM
J. Farmer said...: The "surge" was never meant to "win" a war. Iraq had an elected government responsible for political administration at that time. The US was acting as this entity's security force. The violence that was occurring in Iraq at that time was not between the US military and a single, easily identifiable combatant on the other side. It was multifaceted and had multiple motives and intents. The surge's explicit goal was to get ahold of the security situation to allow for the necessary political accommodations and deals needed to integrate Iraq's various factions into a national government. The surge's tactics, plus the deal made with the Anbar Awakening to root out radical elements, plus the fact that the mixed neighborhoods in and around Baghdad had been effectively cleansed along sectarian lines, contributed to the overall decline of violence in the country, though mass death by terrorist attack have remained a regular occurrence ever since. The turning point strategically had nothing to do with troop levels or US military superiority but with the fact that the insurgency movement had come to be seen as overly violent and dangerous and lost legitimacy and credibility among the larger public. Insurgencies that enjoy widespread public support and legitimacy are virtually impossible to destroy, absent unleashing extreme amounts of violence against largely innocent populations. Nonetheless, while the security situation in Iraq did improve, the political reconciliations the surge was meant to facilitate never happened. Iraq remained a fractured, divided country simmering at its seems. To think that a small US residual force could contain these dynamics is ridiculous. Once Syria fell apart and provided a playground for radical forces, it was not hard to imagine western Iraq following suit. Just because the victors of the First World War drew a line through the old Ottoman Empire does not mean that people who have been living there for hundreds of years are going to feel compelled to respect it. Those same victors drew borders around another fake state called Yugoslavia, and it was mostly held together by an authoritarian strongman named Tito. Once he was gone, the place exploded in ethnic and religious violence.

No matter who got elected in 2008, the Iraq leadership was not going to agree to any kind of significant US military presence and certainly no long-term basing. Such an arrangement was unpopular with the majority of Iraqis, and no democratically elected parliament could withstand the loss of legitimacy it would suffer for being seen as puppets of the US government. If you are going to say Iraq is a democratic society, then Iraqi nationalism is going to be a potent force you will have to contend with. A significant difference between occupying Germany/Japan in the 1940s and Iraq in the 2000s was that Germany and Japan had both been militarily conquered in foreign wars in which they were the aggressors. This was not the mood of the Iraqi public in 2008. For what its worth, our entire strategic relationship with the Saudi royal family is predicated on the fact that they keep a lid on revolutionary forces at home.; 9/30/15, 1:15 PM
Robert Cook said...: "BTW nice avatar Cookie."

Thank you, Scott. It's a doodle of my own.; 10/1/15, 7:24 AM
Rusty said...: What good is conservatism if not to remind one to always be highly skeptical of revolutions?

Whaaa?
I think you have an imperfect understanding about what conservatism is.; 10/1/15, 7:28 AM
Robert Cook said...: "'We have, since WWII, been determined to rule the world.'

"Frankly, I wish this had been true.

"The world would be a much more peaceful place, and everyone would have a much higher standard of living and more individual freedom."

Heh. An empire does not successfully rule the world by making everyone free and affluent. Those running the empire ruling the world want it all for themselves, all the marbles, and this requires they assert firm control and place in positions of power those willing to use force to maintain firm control. It's a pyramid scheme.; 10/1/15, 8:08 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Rusty:

"I think you have an imperfect understanding about what conservatism is."

Conservatism in its modern sense is built upon the rejection of revolution. If you have a different reading of the last 200 years, I'd love to hear it.; 10/1/15, 9:49 AM