The Roots of Obama’s Indecision

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


obhGeneral McChrystal, Obama’s choice to run the War in Afghanistan, described him as “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the military men at their first meeting. That made McChrystal’s firing inevitable.

General McKiernan, the first commander of the war that Obama fired, had embarrassed him by pressing for a decision on increasing troop numbers. It was a decision Obama was unable to make. Just as he was unable to make a final decision on Iraq, dragging out negotiations, and just as he is unable to commit to the number of troops that will remain in Afghanistan after 2014.

McKiernan’s firing had been virtually unprecedented, but would soon become routine. There were political aspects to some of the firings; but they fit into a larger pattern of top commanders being prematurely removed.

Obama was firing commanders for the same reason that he was unable to make wartime decisions.

He had become infamous for dithering over every conflict, demanding a countless stream of alternative plans, poring over everything, postponing a decision, and then like a student diving into a report at the last minute, making an abrupt and often disastrous final decision.

That was the way it happened in Afghanistan and in Libya. Obama never made a decision about Iraq. He let Iraq do it for him. And he made a decision on Syria only to look for a way out at the last minute.

Obama’s supporters would like to interpret his hesitancy as concern for the lives of American soldiers; but the Afghanistan surge cost countless lives by denying support to American soldiers. No amount of criticism from enlisted men ever made him drop those policies the way he dropped the generals he picked to implement them.

Some accepted McChrystal’s explanation that the indecisiveness was that of a community organizer intimidated by the military, but then Obama cheerfully turned the military into a mess of gay weddings, transgender pride events and Green Energy.  It wasn’t the military that was the issue. It was the politics.

Given a clear political orientation to follow, Obama will try to see any program through, no matter how strong the opposition or how destructive the results. It is only when necessity is at odds with dogma that he is unable to reach a decision.

Obama is dogma-ridden. Where Bush was a pragmatist trying to do what worked; he needs to follow a party line. Like the Chinese rocket scientist consulting Mao’s Little Red Book to decide what to do next; he needs the political guidance of the left to come to a decision on anything.

He can pursue any course as long as he starts with a progressive political program and then does whatever is necessary to put it into action. What he has great difficulty doing is beginning with a necessary action and working backward toward a political program.

Putin, the former KGB man, has to regard the interaction with an American leader whose Socialist inflexibility exceeds that of any Soviet leader with a certain amount of irony.

Soviet leaders were able to work backward, transforming a preferred course of action into dogma. Lenin did it with the New Economic Policy, Stalin with his pact with Hitler and Khrushchev with his destruction of Stalin’s cult of personality. By the end, Gorbachev, like Communist China, had all but completed the process of sacrificing dogma to economics.

Obama always sacrifices economics to dogma, with predictably Soviet results, but is unable to do the same thing with military policy. His spin corps makes a virtue out of a necessity, but he is unable to do the same thing in his decision loop.

The left vehemently opposes American troops in Muslim countries even when it’s for their own benefit. That made it impossible for him to do make a decision on Iraq. The left also wanted out of Afghanistan, so like a cartoon character trying to pacify both the angel and devil on his shoulders, he tried to marry a troop surge to a disastrous program of winning over the locals.

The incompatible plan led to the deaths of over 1,500 American soldiers.

Libya was easier. Help Islamist militias overthrow a dictator who had made a deal with the United States and wander away whistling cheery tunes about post-colonialism self-determination.  With no troops on the ground to keep the locals from killing each other it was as post-colonial as an intervention could get.

Syria is trickier. The left is split between the humanitarian interventionists and the anti-colonialists. The hard left is firmly on Assad’s side, but the more mainstream left leans toward fans of international law and members of the Red-Green alliance whose green Islamist wing is bent on intervention.

Obama had done the Muslim Brotherhood’s bidding in the Middle East and was comfortable fusing the left’s anti-colonialism with Islamism. But Syria was the first time that his commitments were truly tested.

The armor of self-righteousness that sees the activist of the left through the commission of even the worst atrocities, and that had seen him through a failed push for gun control over the bodies of dead kids and the Mexicans killed in Fast and Furious, had grown brittle when it came to Syria.

Liberals wanted him to bomb Syria, but the left didn’t. The UK and France wanted him to bomb. The Muslim Brotherhood wanted him to bomb Syria; but his advisers were uncertain that the “moderate” movement’s front men would be able to take the country back from Al Qaeda afterward.

Once again, he couldn’t make a decision. So he tried to make a decision without making a decision.

First he proposed a miniscule strike. Then when Kerry made a quip about Assad giving up his weapons, he jumped on the Russian offer. Once again, he had found a way to put off making a decision.

What Obama lacked was ideological clarity. The old bubble of left-wing politics had not prepared him for the big chair. There was no single Party organization to tell him what to do. No little red book he could read. On the domestic front, the decisions seemed clear. Raise taxes, ban carbon, pass amnesty. But internationally, there were no more right answers.

The left’s foreign politics are reflexively anti-American. And that meant that everything he did was wrong. No matter how Post-American he might try to be, the simple fact that he controlled American foreign policy meant that, to a left that believed America was always wrong, he was always wrong.

That is the crippling factor behind Obama’s indecisiveness in matters of war. To the Anti-American mind, there is no right decision he can make. And burdened with an Anti-American mind, Obama would rather outsource foreign policy to Putin than make another decision.

Obama is caught in an ideological Catch 22. American power is illegitimate. The only moral use of it is to destroy it. But how can he use American power and destroy it at the same time? He has done his best elsewhere in the Middle East; but there is no way to do both in Syria which is a Russian client.

The only way to destroy American power in Syria is by showing how powerless America is. And that is what he has done.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • antioli

    Was his telepromter working when he made his red line comment??

  • Corioilis

    And yet he made the right decision on Syria.

    • Moa

      He realised he would be impeached if he acted contrary to the War Powers Act. Therefore, he pushed the decision to Congress to make, while stating that he could still strike.

      Congress, sanely, said no – thanks to excellent quips by Ted Cruz about a strike meaning the US would become “the Al Qaeda Air Force” (which is exactly the right way to think about the issue).

      Obama made no decision on Syria. The author is right. The decision was made for him. And Vladimir Putin saw this weakness and has exploited it to strengthen Assad’s position.

      Obama and the Democrats (eg. Valerie Jarrett) are so steeped in Leftist ideology they can’t cope with a fast-changing reality that matches the conservative historical and fact-based viewpoint much more closely than the Left ideology-based viewpoint.

      No doubt there is a lot more damage Obama will do to the US and Free World before his term ends. Hopefully Congress can constrain him somewhat – or you guys in the US are screwed.

      • 1Indioviejo1

        We are screwed. We have been screwed for years and the American voter is getting dumber by the day.

    • gray_man

      Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

    • Biff Henderson

      Obama’s arming of Islamic hardliner’s is the right decision? I think not.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      He didn’t make a decision on Syria. He decided to postpone making one. Again

      • EarlyBird

        Obama’s decision making style is much like Lincoln’s, FDR’s, JFK’s, and Nixon’s, all individuals famous for gathering lots of data, feedback and argument before making a decision. It may look messy, but it’s not the same as being indecisive.

        His opposite is the George W. Bush style, where the appearance of decisiveness is as important as the decision itself, and only those in lock-step agreement are allowed to provide their opinion about the decision, and everything is done by the gut. Of course, this is what brought us the epic Iraq War disaster.

        Of course, you take Obama to task for lacking “ideological clarity.” As if ideology should be the goal. Applying timeless values to ever-changing facts is the key.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          JFK certainly. Not that it’s much of a compliment considering some of those decisions that did get made.

        • ziggy zoggy

          Girly Bird. I’ve been trying to figure something in my head, and maybe you can help me out, yeah? When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you’re insane? Maybe you’re just sitting around, reading “Guns and Ammo,” masturbating in your own feces, do you just stop and go, “Wow! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am!?” Yeah. Do you guys do that?

          • hiernonymous

            You’re a regular Dr. Phil these days – it’s fascinating to discover that the people who point out the flaws in your thinking all turn out to be mad as hatters.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Leftism is a mental disorder. Ask your therapist if you don’t believe me.

          • hiernonymous

            “Leftism is a mental disorder.”

            Ah – that’s your psychiatric expertise. How banal.

          • EarlyBird

            Does that image turn you on, Village People?

          • ziggy zoggy

            Did you become a lefty before or after your frontal lobotomy?

        • truebearing

          Your comment comparing Obama to these other presidents is actually pointing out what an idiot he has proven to be. If he so assiduously collects all of the facts, why does he invariably make a stupid decision that hurts America, and usually, the world?
          Only someone with your profound lack of understanding could arrive at such a fact-contradicted conclusion.

      • EarlyBird

        Oh you’re right that he made the wrong decision to begin with, in regard to making red lines he had no interest or desire in enforcing. That was his mistake.

        The next challenge of his decision making is whether he can make lemonade out of lemons by way of the lifeline that Russia has thrown him. I’m very skeptical, but if Russia wants to wrest responsibility for that bloody, horrifi mess called “Syria” from the American people, let them.

    • DonaldYoungsRevenge

      Right decision, LMAO!! He painted himself into a corner and knew he didn’t have the votes in Congress so Putin bailed him out so that he could use and abuse his sorry ass in years to come.

  • truebearing

    In Obama’s eyes, America and Israel are the Axis of Evil. Ultimately, everything he does is guaranteed to place both in a progressively worse position, even if he has to endure ridicule….which isn’t easy for a pathological narcissist.
    The best way to assess Obama’s objectives is to line up his accomplishments and see where they point. So far, all of Obama’s “accomplishments” are deleterious to the well being of the United States and Israel, but highly enabling for our enemies, especially the Muslims.
    Most likely the reason Obama isn’t that upset about the criticism he is getting is because he knows that his two most important objectives are being served: damage America and strengthen Islam. Obama is the master of passive destruction.

  • adumbrate

    Thanks Daniel – I voted for Bush twice, because he could make decisions. Romney would have also made decisions. Like them or hate them – their decisions are clear and do not waiver, a guide for foreign policy success (iRaq would have been 100x worse under Obama). McCain and Obama are both dogma politicians – dogma makes for a terrible president. That is the one character flaw Americans often miss when they vote in an american idol president – if the guy can’t make decisions, people are going to die (Benghazi) and misery will grow (25% unemployment for African Americans) – but alas, guns need to be taken so that crime can stop. stupid.

    • UIO

      “Like them or hate them – their decisions are clear and do not waiver, a guide for foreign policy success (iRaq would have been 100x worse under Obama).”

      Using Iraq as an example of a success story is just asinine, with more than 4.800 coalition forces killed and probably twice that number maimed. The “beacon of democracy” is now – a decade later – a complete anarchy riddled with sectarian violence, kidnappings and car bombs, and the Christian minority on its path to complete annihilation.

      As much as I dislike Obama, he would never invade Iraq in the first place.

      American foreign policy the last 15 years or so has been characterized by plenty of muscles and no brains.

      • Elliott Alhadeff

        Tens of thousands of his own murdered by Saddam, violations of Kuwait cease-fire, shooting at our pilots in the no-fly zones (individually acts of war), attempted assassination of our President, attempt to establish a nuclear weapons program, intent -and ability – to dominate the Arab middle-east, persistent threat to Israel, at least 15 UN violations, repeated violations of sanctions, refusal to allow for WMD inspectors – so we should have left him alone? The aftermath of WWII could have been a disaster if Obama was in charge. The lessening of our Iraqi successes is only because we lack the leadership of any program that depends on competence and instead has to rely on stupidity, ignorance and inexperience.

        • Alvaro

          30.000 injured troops, 500.000 former soldiers suffering from PTSD, trillions of dollars wasted, breeches of international law, fabrications of evidence, torture, pitting Iraq into a civil war costing 100.000 Iraqi lives – not to mention: Without the Iraq war, would Obama even get elected?

          And for crying out loud: There were worse problems than Saddam Hussein back in the day (like North Korea becoming a nuclear power) – at least Saddam Hussein kept Iran in check.

          • catherineinpvb

            Imagine our history – had we been ‘oil dependent’. . .or stayed so – and imagine our future ‘history’ – if we were now; energy dependent.

            True to Leftist form; however; per our future success in oil/energy; Obama will not have it. . .he did an ‘about face’ when challenged by Putin’s charge that America was not an ‘exceptional nation’.

            Obama; lied; of course. It has been his agenda to degrade America; and yes; he is right on target; no matter what he says; when Putin is winning the ‘staring contest’.

          • DonaldYoungsRevenge

            The only folks “fabricating evidence” was the left wing nut jobs who to this day fail to acknowledge that Saddam Hussein and his evil sons with the help of his Generals moved the WMDS to Syria while Bush was begged to dick around with the useless UN. Iraq was one of America’s most successful wars, statistics prove it. Most of the PTSD cases are hyped up for benefits which no one dares to challenge. There was NO TORTURE, maybe some good old colleging hazings, NOT TORTURE. Muslims killing Muslims is a whole lot better than them killng Americans.
            Obama is a FRAUD and it is proven but not yet given a platform from which to shout it from the rooftops. That day is coming.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Since when do lefties care about military lives or wasting tax dollars? And spare us the TIRED old canards about Bush lied, people died and the waterboarding of a total of 4 terrorists. And phony Iraqi casualty figures are beyond lame. Nobody cares about terrorists and “The Lancet’s” phony stats were debunked the same day they came out.

            You may miss uncle Saddam but I don’t.

          • EarlyBird

            You lobotomized fool, it’s not the body count that made Iraq War such a disaster, it is the fact that not only did we not achieve any foreign policy or security goal, but we DAMAGED the nation and REVERSED those things at a profound cost and actually HELPED our enemies, like Iran.

            By your standard, Japan won WWII!

          • ziggy zoggy

            We? You had nothing to do with the overthrow of the other, less destructive Hussein. Bush cleared out a terrorist breeding ground and soldiers and Marines greased hundreds of thousands of islamopithecine terrorists in the process. America was doing great until Obunghole came along.

            By your standard, the Soviet Union and Cuba were Marxist success stories. President Obangi sucks and you take it in the @$$.

          • WW4

            Small correction, I’m sure you meant to say, “America was doing great (well, besides that terrorist attack on 9/11, the financial collapse and the egregious loss of blood and treasure on a go-nowhere war) until Obunghole came along, killed al Qaeda’s senior leadership, killed a bunch of Somali pirates, killed bin Ladin, got us out of a go-nowhere war for which we’re in debt to the Chinese, and reformed the health care system after politicians talked about it for 35 years.”

            No problem, ziggy, happy to help!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Are you serious? None of those “features” are positive things unless you pull them out of context.

            No POTUS has absolute control over anything. The things he’s done have been bungled because of his radical ideology and intentions. If something trivial happens to go our way (seemingly), it’s mere coincidence.

            To paraphrase the lunatics, no, he has certainly not cured cancer or any real disease though he gets credit for “vision” in many cases for people who don’t care about facts and objective analysis.

            Is al Qaeda stronger now than in 2009? Are Islamists controlling more or less resources that can be used to attack us? Is Islamist rhetoric ratcheting up in anticipation of exploiting their strengths or settling in to a resignation that they don’t have opportunities?

            Our enemies are enriched and emboldened all over the world. That’s the bottom line. We’re weaker, they’re stronger.

            Now if you can explain how this was beyond the “Bummer’s” control, I’ll listen. You can’t actually claim he accomplished anything positive for anyone who cares about Western civilization or the US constitution.

            WRT healthcare, it’s a wonderful idea. It’s like wanting a new car for decades and you finally get one…by driving your old one off the cliff as a promise to get that new car.

            Where is that “new car?” It doesn’t exist. Not all “reform” is positive. All radical revolutionaries “reform” something. It’s usually not good.

          • ziggy zoggy

            911 preceded the overthrow of the less evil Hussein. The financial collapse began with Frank, Dodds, Fannie and Freddie, and spiraled done the bowl with Obunnghole. ” “Blood and treasure” is a ridiculous lefty metaphor and has no basis in reality. Obunghole killed nobody, much less anybody in the AQ leadership. Osama was an impotent fugitive who was betrayed by Al Qaeda and SEAL Team 6 killed him against orders. The same thing happened with the scruffy ragamuffin “pirates” from Somalia. Obama refused to allow SEAL snipers to grease them for days, until the commander on sight got fed up and ordered the shooting against Obamorders. Obambi took credit just like with Bin Loser, of course. The humanitarian mission in Iraq was not funded by China. The Obamaconomy is. Healthcare is worse now than in the Dark Ages.

            No problemWWfool, happy to help. Cretin.

          • steves_59

            (Drones) killed al Qaeda’s senior leadership, (the US Navy) killed a bunch of Somali pirates, (SEAL Team 6) killed bin Ladin, (failure to successfully negotiate the SOFA) got us out of a go-nowhere war for which we’re in debt
            to the Chinese, and (trashed) the health care system after politicians
            talked about it for 35 years.”
            Fixed it for ya.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “By your standard, Japan won WWII!”

            No, the Soviets won, thanks to the left. Thanks for the reminder.

          • m4253y

            for the most part i found your comments somewhat knowledgeable up to this one. this one comment however shows your incredible selective memory loss and outright ignorance. did the muslim in chief act appropriately in the fashion with which the US exited Iran?

            Obviously, nothing in the article re: the firing of the generals had any bearing on your stupid and convenient resuscitation of the facts as you saw fit to revise.

            as for your really stupid comment re if there were no iraq war the muslim in chief would not have been elected leads me to firmly believe that your degree of insight is about navel high.

          • Alvaro

            Spicing whatever you write with plenty of adjectives does not necessarily make your case any stronger.

            “did the muslim in chief act appropriately in the fashion with which the US exited Iran?”

            Did you mean Iraq?

            The war in Iraq left behind an unstable government, unstabilized the Middle East by creating a power vacuum and thus paved the way for a strong Iran.

            “as for your really stupid comment re if there were no iraq war the muslim in chief would not have been elected leads me to firmly believe that your degree of insight is about navel high.”

            Asking a question is hardly the same as stating a fact. The war in Iraq was certainly one of Obama’s focal points. Maybe Obama would have been elected anyway. We will never know.

          • m4253y

            yes, Iraq.

            you missed the point.

            let me ask you this:

            prior to the muslim in chief ascending to the throne in 2009, GWB, with the push of all stripes of partisan politics had to put in place a rescue package for the economy, the markets. etc.

            when this was set in motion under his regime, the muslim in chief came in and he continued the process by throwing out the rule of contract law, something Bush would never have done.

            ANYWAY, what did the muslim in chief accomplish over the past 5 years wrt the economy since? employment down, employment participation up (90 million Americans removed from the workforce), housing flat to nowhere, mortgage defaults at historic highs, etc economically? NOTHING to NEGATIVE IS the answer.

            Now, taking the impetus of the ARTICLE into perspective, what else did your muslim in chief do wrt to the military, to the destruction of any proper and logical action of exiting IRAQ? NOTHING IS THE ANSWER?

            AND, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE DEATHS CAUSED BY HIS MUSLIM IN CHIEF MAJESTY OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN AFGHANISTAN SINCE 2009?

            this article EVEN FAILED TO MENTION IT…the caliphate ISSUED ORDERS TO THE MILITARY THAT THEY CANNOT return fire when fired upon.

            the entire damn article is about the “The Roots of Obama’s Indecision”

            NO ONE TWISTED HIS ARM TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY. HE TOLD THE WORLD OF HIS TRANSFORMATION POWERS TO LOWER THE SEAS ECT. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GWB. UNDERSTOOD????

            SO STAY ON THE DAMN SUBJECT AND YES YOU KNOW THAT OBAMA USED ALINSKY’S PLAYBOOK AND ALL HIS CONTACTS IN THE LAME STREAM MEDIA TO GET ELECTED.

            WHERE THE HE!! HAVE YOU BEEN FOR 5 YEARS, UNDER A ROCK???

          • Aizino Smith

            If someone attempts to assassinate a countries ex-President, shoots at their airplanes & everything else Elliot said, Does not a country lose prestige and respect. Are they not then considered a paper tiger. Won’t they then be attacked?

            Via state sponsored terrorism. During the 1980s I felt safe flying in the U.S.. but I was not so sure a bout flying to or from Europe. What with the Badar Meinhoff gang, Red Army faction and PLO hijacking planes.

            When a country is a paper tiger, countries sponsor terrorist groups to slowly grind you down. the Meinhoff gagng had 5 star digs in East Berlin courtesy of the East German STASI. the Stasi & the KGB felt entitled and safe in supporting terrorism.

            Denmark conquered the whole coastline between Visby and the Vistula without winning any battles destroying the Wends or any sieges. they just wore the Wends & Pomeranians down with raids.

            You know Norwegian. Look it up

          • Alvaro

            I do agree with you that a country such as the USA needs prestige and respect, and that this prestige and respect gives the country a psychological advantage towards its adversaries in addition to the pure military advantage.

            The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan showed that the US had very capable armed forces, crushing the enemy in conventional warfare in a very convincing manner.

            On the other hand, they also showed that bearded illiterates with roadside bombs could make the US unable to stabilize the country, demoralize troops, inflict unacceptable casualties and severely impact its economy with unconventional warfare. This is where the real damage to US prestige and respect was inflicted.

          • Aizino Smith

            Anthony Shaffer the author Operation Dark Heart wrote that the Army captured a female ISI spy with the Taliban.

            Can the U.S. defeat the Taliban? No question about, we can.

            Can the U.S. defeat the Taliban defeat the while they are being supported by Pakistan? No

            During the opening stages of the Afghanistan War 4 to 5 thousand Taliban, Pakistani soldiers and Al Qaeda were airlifted out of besieged Kunduz after VP Cheney okayed it.

            Source: Strategy & Tactics Issue 281 p 66-67

            http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340165/ns/world_news-brave_new_world/t/airlift-evil/

            You cannot win a war that way.

            P.S. Nothing the execrable Democrat Party has said about Bush or Cheney have dissuaded from me supporting them. The above does. That and bush going along with Treasury Secretary shifty Paulsen

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “On the other hand, they also showed that bearded illiterates with roadside bombs could make the US unable to stabilize the country, demoralize troops, inflict unacceptable casualties and severely impact its economy with unconventional warfare. This is where the real damage to US prestige and respect was inflicted.”

            We showed that by our reactions. We lost the initiative because Bush had to deal with enemies at home and abroad, as every non-leftist president must deal with.

            It was not beyond our capabilities at all. Rumsfeld wanted to impress on everyone how cheaply it could be done. Perhaps he did have a vision of rolling through the entire region one by one and creating “democratic sovereigns” in each nation.

            But, because Rumsfeld’s “Transformation” plans were part of selling the war, Bush got boxed in by the left.

            There are plenty of delusional people outside of the Democratic Party.

        • EarlyBird

          Bush’s entire plan was a quick easy war ending with a pro-American democracy in the heart of the Arab world, from which we could project power to tame the Islamist beast. How’d that turn out?

          Hint: it was a disaster before you ever heard the name “Obama,” and every honest, intelligent person accepts that fact.

          Iraq was a basketcase by the time of our 2003 invasion. We were shocked at how degraded the infrastructure and military was when we rolled through. Saddam could barely hold control of the Sunni Triangle let alone “dominate the Arab Middle East” or “threaten Israel.”

          Ironically, the Saddam Problem which needed to be dealt with was that Iraq was quickly becoming a failed, chaotic state. But it was our invasion itself which ensured it became one, at an enormous cost in American lives and prestige.

          • Aizino Smith

            People are people.

            Icelandic Vikings had the Thing.
            Anglo Saxons the Witan
            Pre-Migration Europe village ledgers met in council or so it is thought until constant warfare elevated war time chiefs on a permanent basis and undermined their authority.

            English Democracy started out of the right of feudal barons
            and spread to lesser nobility/landed gentry. English Democracy was seeded by the Magna Carta. Earlier traditions were dead. they had been killed by years of warfare and the doctrine of divine right.

            Democracy and rights is an ebb and a flow type thing. if you do not defend them they are encroached upon.

            Take property law analogy. If a neighbor crosses you property one day and keeps on doing it, if he does it for several years and then you sue him to stop, he can go to court and say it is a tradition and all the sudden you have a permanent easement on your property. He or she can literally use your property as a driveway.

            Democracy in in Afghanistan can grow out of the tradition of the Loya jirga

            Democracy in in Saudi Arabia can grow out of the tradition of the majlis.

            How can Democracy grow in England from the Magna Carta/the kings counselors, but it cannot grow from the loya jorga or majlis?

          • EarlyBird

            Well, I’m not sure where you’re going exactly. Do I personally beleive that any civilization, with enough evolution and good ideas can accept and use democracy? Yes, but it must come from within.

            I hardly believe it is natural to humans to share power, however. Democracy as we know it is a pretty rare and new concept. Nor does it naturally stay in place once esetablished, as you’ve pointed out. It must be seen ultimately in a selfish vein: I won’t hurt and steal from you if you don’t hurt and steal from me. And from there other values of individual rights flow.

            But I don’t think we can impose democracy by force on a population to whom it is not only alien, but anathema. Nonetheless, I do have hope – one only can hope – that Muslims will figure out some kind of dignified version of self government.

          • Aizino Smith

            Democracy is not a new concept. It is as old as villages.

            There is a lot of consultation/voting. There is always an uneasy balance between consultation and a chief/hetman/king or whoever (oligarchies) taking more and more control. So many well meaning teenagers I remember were into anarchy. they were into because they voted who would be the hunt leader/ war chief chief,etc day by day or as the occasion arose. Democracy has been around for a long time. somewhere from 1000,000 to 10, 000 years.

            Democracy at least go back to ancient Greece. They had a council in Carthage and ancient Rome also. The Carthagenians were not Indo-European. They were Punic (i.e. Semites). Even when you have a large council over time you always have to be on guard for oligarchies and the head oligarch (king/dictator/maximum leader). right now juding fro election returns where 85 % of congressmen retain their seats, they are married to Beltway journalists and lobbyists we are on a precipice ourselves.

            Again if you look at small tribes they also vote.

          • Drakken

            Carthage had an active King who actively ruled and vetoed and put in their place the council when they got a little too uppity. In the end democracy weakens and it taken over for a period time by a strong man or king, the whole cycle has been going up and down for a couple millennia. Personally I think we are in steep decline as to where democracy is going, and will end up with as strong man or ruler sooner or later, the ebb and flow of history marches on.

          • Aizino Smith

            I have been reading about the Greek-Punic Wars. The Assembly of Carthage seemed to be useless as did the citizens.

            The Roman Republic fell. But for a while they had citizen soldiers. For the most part Carthage relied on their Sacred Band, some upper crust types riding horses, mercenaries, and subject cities to provide soldiers.

            Agathocles of Sicily nearly did to Carthage what Scipio did. So the Carthaginians had a dress rehearsal and did not learn from it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Democracy is not a new concept. It is as old as villages.”

            The USA is a constitutional republic utilizing representative democracy. It’s not some organic democracy because it was built after carefully considering lessons from history and as well is ideology from the Judeo Christian Bible.

          • Drakken

            Well honey you can wish in one hand and sh** in the other, which one are you going to fill first? The ME if it remains Islamic, no matter the stripe, is either going to be ruled by a dictator or a mullah, better a semi-secular brutal dictator than a mullah. Democracy in a muslim ME country is a pipedream thought up in a liberal leftist world view of unicorns and rivers of honey.

          • WW4

            “Democracy in a muslim ME country is a pipedream thought up in a liberal leftist world view of unicorns and rivers of honey.”

            It was a pipedream thought up and put into writing by the Project for a New American Century, containing such leftists as Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton.

            But continue kidding yourself; it’s what conservatives do best.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We can impose a constitution that empowers the democratic minded, which gives them power to grow democracy from within their own culture.

            Without it, you just have might makes right. The jihadis will always organize around the koran. If we empower the secular-minded individuals and show them how to operate a secure government with their own men, they’ll follow the success we already observed when we followed this recipe in Japan.

            Cue clueless denial about the lessons of post-war Japan.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “People are people.”

            Sure, when they’re born. Ideology and culture count a whole lot in predicting behavior. That’s a forgotten lesson of history, at least in the West.

            “English Democracy started out of the right of feudal barons
            and spread to lesser nobility/landed gentry. English Democracy was seeded by the Magna Carta. Earlier traditions were dead. they had been killed by years of warfare and the doctrine of divine right.”

            You’re missing 2 of the most significant changes in the history of the West, and they’re related. The use of the printing press facilitated replacing the Catholic paradigm with Biblical ideology spread through grass roots growth. Many wars ensued but in the end Biblical ideology won. For the most part, because the authentic Biblical ideology also empowered atheists that wanted revenge against all believers partly because of the legacy of the Catholic Church.

            Secondly but also related to the printing press is that education became easier to employ in wider populations. The arguments for maintaining social classes dissipated. The arguments for denying voting rights became less powerful.

            The printing press was available to the same populations (the ones we’re talking about that is, but not all populations throughout the globe of course) that today behave no differently than before. Why is that? Education didn’t help them evolve because their cultural dogmas don’t allow for individuals to think for themselves in meaningful constructive ways and don’t allow for the possibility of progress (not leftist progress but any progress at all) until it can be reconciled with their concrete dogmas.

            If you want to “test” a culture, one way is to see how it reacts to access to new technology.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “How can Democracy grow in England from the Magna Carta/the kings counselors, but it cannot grow from the loya jorga or majlis?”

            Because culture and ideology count for a whole lot more than you’ve acknowledged.

          • Aizino Smith

            How is it that car bombs in Baghdad hurt American prestige, but car bombs today do not hurt Iranian prestige?

          • EarlyBird

            Car bombs in Baghdad today DO hurt American prestige. We’re still losing respect by the mayhem we set into action over there. Hey, Aizino, I actually gave you an Up vote on a very honest assessment of the Iraq War debacle. Not sure where you’re going with this question.

          • Aizino Smith

            Iranian support cannot help the Shia Iraqi government contain Al Qaeda’s new carbombing campaign. You would think that Iran would lose support in iraq even among some Shia.

            Iran has no support in the gulf or rest of the middle east outside of ethnic shia except out of fear or money (Hamas).

          • Drakken

            The more those bloody savages kill each other the better we are, eff them and love ours, sit back as the tear each other to pieces, it’s a wonderful sight to behold.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            They love death the way we love life. So they say, because of their ideological requirements to say so. Unfortunately too many people are influenced by this satanic rhetoric.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Your failed lies are five years out of date.

          • EarlyBird

            Your worldview is five centuries out of date.

          • ziggy zoggy

            Wow. Real zinger, feltch breath. How are the @$$ herpes? Do they hurt?

          • EarlyBird

            There we go again with the gay imagery, Village People.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Bush’s entire plan was a quick easy war ending with a pro-American democracy in the heart of the Arab world, from which we could project power to tame the Islamist beast.”

            Quick, easy, cheap and relatively low profile. He tried to sell the war to the left.

            The part you left it is the most relevant. Per usual.

            “How’d that turn out?”

            He was stupid to care so much about deranged leftists.

      • 1Indioviejo1

        IMO Bush had the right inclination but his judgement was clouded by Thinking the enemy is democratically inclined. If anybody took the time to study Islam as the totalitarian political ideology that it is we would not have spend so much blood and treasure in bringing about regime change. Both Parties suffer from this idiocy. In Iraq we needed to affect regime change and hang Saddam for war crimes and then let the brutal army deal with its sucession, as long as we approve the new strong man. There is no alternative in Islam. Islam is not for democracy. BTW, our Muscle keeps us safe!

        • Drakken

          Well said and truth to power, the idiots we have in charge just can’t seem to get their blinders off and see they need a strong ruthless dictator in charge to keep it running, or otherwise we have mad mullahs screaming jihad and pointing in our direction, always better to keep the muslim at your feet, otherwise he is at your throat.

          • 1Indioviejo1

            “Keep the Muslim at your feet, otherwise he is at your throat.” Good post. This out to be our mission in dealing with the barbarians.

      • Aizino Smith

        “4.800 coalition forces killed ‘

        We lost 3,000 at Omaha beach. After mid 1943 the German Generals were aiming for a negotiated peace. Possibly depending on relative balance of power one that left them with gains intact.
        So if we had negotiated peace would that have meant all the soldiers had died for a bad cause from the “git go”?

        • UIO

          “We lost 3,000 at Omaha beach.”

          Great. I guess that makes it OK to keep squandering lives and money in Muslim hell holes for nothing. Keep dying, keep going broke.

        • Aizino Smith

          UIOsaid

          “We lost 3,000 at Omaha beach.”

          Great. I guess that makes it OK to keep squandering lives and money in Muslim heII holes for nothing. Keep dying, keep going broke
          ***
          The point the # of casualties in & of itself does not necessarily mean if a cause is good or bad.

          At the current rate of progression, we would pull out of England and ignore our NATO treaty obligations if Kerry got a papercut and earned a 4th Purple Heart.

          I argued this with my father. I said the casualty rate is less than almost every previous war. He =said although the U.S. was not being bled white by casualties and we could sustain, every death was an infinite disaster for a families. Now this is true. but only because we are not spartan. We spit on our military.

          • Drakken

            The American public has grown decadent and weak, they will not stand for casualties and want instant results which is impossible to do.

          • 1Indioviejo1

            England has chosen to become a Muslim nation, and as such, they have chosen the enemy camp. Nato today is a joke and we need to prepare alone for our survival.

        • 1Indioviejo1

          Yes. It had to be surrender unconditionally or face more war within a few years. BTW, the beating the Germans and the Japanese took is the one I dream of for the Muslims.

      • Aizino Smith

        You realize that the Germans could have won the North African campaign. If they had they could have tore up the Middle East depriving the allies of oil. India certainly would have been short of oil. the British in India were the last in line for all supplies. Could they have held in Imphal & Kohima from April 1944 to June 1944 without oil?

        Question: If Egypt had fallen could the British held the rest of the Middle East?

        Question if the Germans had taken Egypt, how many Arabs would have joined them? Have you heard of Anwar Sadat? Do you have a pulse? Are you a day walker?

        If Gibraltar and/or Malta had fallen would Egypt have fallen?

        How easy would it have been to take Gibraltar or Malta?

        If Germany had taken Egypt, how many more SS divisions would there have been? Would they have been as effective more effective or less effective than the Bosnian Muslim SS division?

        Would the U.S. & Britain thrown in the towel if Germany had taken Egypt?

        • Drakken

          The way things are going, maybe we should have let the Germans pacify the middle east, at least they had the stomach for it.

          • Aizino Smith

            I do not know what they would have done had they defeated the 8th Army. They would have been stretched. But the Arabs would have revolted for sure. With fewer naval British bases, German supply problems would have eased and the British increased.

            Rommel was not only hampered by the small forces he had, but since a lot of his supplies never arrived. If he had those supplies he might have pressed the British harder.

            WW2 could have been closer or gone the other way. I do not think people really understand that.

            Your average joe does not need to be reading Sun Tzu every minute of every day but that should read it about 3 times in their life. Read it. set it down, read it 10 years later when they are wiser. Your average joe does not need to read every war or every battle. but they should read a few wars and at least one in great detail and try to get into the art and science of it. Watching a war movie is not enough. The Bridge over the River Kwai was a farce. I have been there. It was Hollywood crap.

            No one was whistling, 90,000 poeple died building it and it was called the death railway.

      • ziggy zoggy

        How many Americans died in WWII, you FUCKTARD? Since when do casualties determine the success of a war?

        Obunghole threw away everything Bush accomplished.

        • hiernonymous

          “How many Americans died in WWII”

          Something over 400,000, out of worldwide casualties of somewhere between 50 and 80 million. We took 0.8 percent of the war’s casulaties, though we were one of about 8 primary belligerents.

          Put another way, the U.S. lost 0.32% of its population in the war, compared to 14% for the Soviet Union, a bit under 10% for Germany, and about 4% for Japan. Britain and Italy come in at just under and just over 1% respectively.

          Looked at in yet another way, total casualties for the U.S. in all theaters was less than 1/7 of the Japanese total of over 3 million.

          “Since when do casualties determine the success of a war?”

          Casualties play a huge role in determining the success of most wars. At some point, one side or the other decides that the number of people it is losing is not worth the likely rewards of continuing to fight. There’s no magic number, of course, but in the case of Iraq, we clearly took more casualties than we were prepared to tolerate for the perceived fruits of a possible victory, and we left.

          Obviously, the perceived importance of the war and the ability of the government to mobilize and control its population play roles in determining just how many casualties and other kinds of loss a country can take. The Soviets lost somewhere between 20 and 30 million people and were still able to drive out the Germans, who took about 8 million casualties themselves. The Viet Cong and NVA lost around as many people in just the Tet and Easter offensives, respectively, as the U.S. took in the entire war. Enemy casualties in that war probably totaled about 1 million; U.S. casualties were less than 5% of that figure, but the Vietnamese were willing to accept their casualties, and we were not.

          Bottom line: If you’re arguing that casualties are not the sole determinant of the outcome of the war, you’re correct. If you’re arguing that taking high casualties doesn’t mean that the war will necessarily be lost, that’s also true. If you’re arguing that casualties aren’t a critical factor in deciding the outcome of a war, that’s arrant nonsense. The U.S. has clearly ended several conflicts based primarily on the perception that it was taking unacceptably high casualties in comparison to the projected benefits of victory: Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, the Lebanon intervention all come to mind.

          “Obunghole threw away everything Bush accomplished.”

          Seems like most of Bush’s accomplishments are intact: The same Shi’a despot is still in power. The same Sunni insurgency is still around. There are still car bombs going off in markets and by mosques. The same alliance between Iran and the Iraqi Shi’a is in place. The same Shi’a-Sunni jar of nitroglycerine is still bouncing around in the back of the truck. I don’t think you need to worry about Bush’s legacy being thrown away.

          The only concrete positive accomplishment Bush achieved in Iraq was the elimination of Saddam, and last I checked, Saddam’s still dead, so that wasn’t thrown away, either.

          Really, the only thing Obama seems to have thrown away is the large number of monthly U.S. casualties that used to accompany the stories of the car bombs, murders, etc.

          • ziggy zoggy

            It was a rhetorical question, numbnvts. America lost far more people in WWII than in Iraq but WWII is considered successful. “We” did not fight in Iraq. Other people did it for us, and they did not abandon their victory because Americans were weepy and war weary. Obama threw away the victory Bush achieved with the military.

            Terrorism is rampant in Iraq thanks to the 0.

          • A Z

            Last time I checked, when we were in Iraq the leaders of “Sunni Awakening” were on the U.S. side and being assassinated. They were not playing us like Pakistan; the sheiks were being assassinated.

            And that is significant. the sheiks could get Sunni tribesmen from joining or cooperating with Al Qaeda. Casualties were tapering off. Now without the U.S. when the @ sshat Shia PM leans of the Sunnis they have no recourse. They cannot have the U.S. lean on the Shia to act reasonable. So they play all passive aggressive and some of the men join or cooperate with Al Qaeda.

            Sometimes you take massive casualties until you win. the Russians did in WW2. In 1945 10% of all their “effectives” were women. All whole year group of men had been wiped out. Yet if they had pulled out of the war in 1943, Germany might have come back for a rematch after holding off the allies and developing the atomic bomb. Heisenberg (I think it was him) could only stop the Berman bomb project so long.

            The Romans during the 2nd Punic War took horrendous casualties. They won the war. by rights they should have lost that war after Trasmene or Cannae.

            There were people who gave up the fight in Iraq and subsequently came back to continue it. I saw the reports. I am sure that Senator Reid’s words “The War is lost” and the the antics of Cindy Sheehan, Code Stink and the bulk of the American press had an effect in jihadis continuing the war.

            I am sure that playing footsies with Sadr had a large effect on the Shia PM to decide to be a real bi_tch and not play nice with the Kurds or the Sunnis.

            There is more than just casualties and a political faction wishing for defeat so as to tarnish their opposition. And I mean exactly that and our enemies know it as well. therefore they continue to fight instead of packing it in. I do not know if their is a SUN TZU commentary on that but there should be. The Tet Offensive is a shining example of that. By not calling a spade a spade, we embolden Sadr and like minded bigots. We did not make a bid deal out of Iranian involvement.

          • Aizino Smith

            Put another way, the U.S. lost 0.32% of its population

            And Roosevelt censored the pictures of the beaches of Tarawa, because of public opinion.

            Try that today.

            When a Republican president is elected the homeless stories hit the airwaves. When a democrat is elected the problem is miraculous solved for 8 years.

            Same goes for casualties. Those casualty reports stopped after Obama’s election. As did the press surrounding casket at dover Air Force bases like a pack of jackals. The Drone strikes were still reported, but not as much by the LSM and more by the extreme left.

        • Aizino Smith

          “the U.S. lost 0.32% of its population”

          And Roosevelt censored the pictures of the beaches of Tarawa, because of public opinion

      • m4253y

        “The “beacon of democracy” is now – a decade later – a complete anarchy riddled with sectarian violence, kidnappings and car bombs, and the Christian minority on its path to complete annihilation.”

        and who can you thank for that fool? your muslim in chief. the reference to Christian slaughter in your quoted statement is admission of that well enough. sound like anything new when it comes to killing Christians? ask your buddy barry.

        also, your statement “…Obama, he would never invade Iraq in the first place” is just INCREDIBLY STUPID and redundant. That was the entire impetus of the damn article FOOL!!!

        Do you wake up and blame GWB for your wet dreams as well?

      • herb benty

        Libs like you and Hussein wouldn’t have had the cajones to go after SODAMNINSANE after 9-11. So Saddam could merrily go on gassing kurdish villages, sending $25,000 checks to mother’s of suicide bombers and invading neighbouring countries lie Kuwait. Reagan and both Bush Presidents provided America with both power and intelligence. Obama fits the Biblical statement about those who, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”.

        • 1Indioviejo1

          THE WORD IS COJONES, COñO. Just look it up.

          • herb benty

            I believe you! Thanks.

        • WW4

          No, it’s true. Obama only had the cojones to go after the people responsible for attacking us on 9/11.

          Reagan…can you imagine if Obama sold the Iranians weapons after they kidnapped our citizens like Reagan did, then used that money tofund a war Congress didn’t approve? Can you imagine if Obama did nothing after the Marine barracks were attacked in Lebanon?

          • herb benty

            Sonny, Reagan was kind of busy dismantling the Soviet Union. Had Reagan solved everything, he would have to have been Superman. What do you do when fanatics place 1000 lbs.of semtex on your veranda? Nuke Lebanon, Beirut? Are we nuking Bagdad, Kabul where we have lost THOUSANDS of our best young men and women! The Iran-Contra “affair” was kind of efficient, I thought at the time, World Communism was trying to take over OUR Hemisphere, my own union was sending money to the commies!!! Obama, “makes nice” with Karzi, reduces troop levels to almost undefensible levels while Karzi is in bed with the Taliban. Idiotic, bring them ALL home already and station them along the friggin Mexican border. Cornering OBL was a process over a couple of Presidencies. You make it sound like Obama was on the chopper. Reagan was responsible for a return of America’s respect from the Carter fiasco. “Fast and Furious”, reneging on defensive missles in Europe, the complete alienation of our once staunch allies, and I mention Canada, for BHO’s refusal to greenlight Keystone XL, a source of cheap oil for a hundred years right beside us,! He considers Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezualan oil better, when Canada is at the cutting edge of environmental care. There are none so blind as those who WILL not see.

    • EarlyBird

      I voted for Bush in 2000. He sure made quick, clear, gut-based decisions and boy he stuck to them no matter how bad they were! That showed “character” and “leadership” and that he was “the decider.” As for firing generals, he fired Shinseki for actually stating that we would need twice the number of troops on the ground to have a snowball’s chance in hell of pulling off his fantasy in Mesopotamia, and other bothersome pieces of reality.

      There is also the opposite, the guy who is totally unable to make a decision. I don’t see Obama as being the guy who can’t make a decision, but who does get a lot of data before pulling the trigger. He’s made all sorts of decisions which people on this site whine about. So Greenfield’s latest hackery is just that.

      As for Obama being dogmatic, I don’t see that either. He’s driven the left and the right crazy.

  • Sgt Maj

    All this reinforces the fact that Dineesh D’Souza had it correct from the beginning. Last week Podhoretz came around to the fact that the Chicago thug isn’t making mistakes – - he’s destroying the US intentionally.
    And the libbies are still playing ostrich!

    • 1Indioviejo1

      We knew this from the begining, Sgt Maj, this is who Obama is. His whole life has been made up of grievances against the “man”. His Party supports his positions because this is how they “roll”. If not him then Hillary, but they aim to bring us down through elections.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    Wake up and smell the FRAUD Daniel. Obama has been proven to be a fraud by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo. They have investigated this FRAUD for two years and have been briefing Congresspersons with their evidence. Will Daniel be the last to write about their findings, shame on you and all the folks at Frontpage. You have failed to report about this Scandal of the Century.

  • John Davidson

    The first objective of the socialist was to isolate themselves from the law so they could be free to destroy our economy effectively.

  • PouponMarks

    >>Obama is caught in an ideological Catch 22. American power is
    illegitimate. The only moral use of it is to destroy it. But how can he
    use American power and destroy it at the same time? He has done his best
    elsewhere in the Middle East; but there is no way to do both in Syria
    which is a Russian client.

    The only way to destroy American power in Syria is by showing how powerless America is. And that is what he has done.<<

    This is but only one of dozens of instances of treason, as defined in the Constitution. Marxism/Communism is the all enveloping religion to Obama. He is a slave to it. All Reality must fit into the ideological box. If it doesn't, then Reality must be in error, and it must be changed. That's why there is on second thought about dead Americans dying unnecessary deaths in Lybia, Afghanistan, or any where else. To the Marxist/Communist, there are the necessary collateral damage, the sacrifice that M/C insists is the immutable movement of historical inevitability. To the True Believer, even though it has never worked, and caused widespread death, deprivation, suffering, and holocausts, the Belief System that is such a closed system, infects all the Obamas that it will work THIS TIME.

    Such apostles buy in to this "Religion", because of many reasons, psychopathology being one, but also because it puts non productive, glib, insecure, and evil people like Oblowma at the top.

  • No RNC

    Where does the Jewish support for intervention to support Syrian Al-Q rebels fit into this analysis? You seemed to have left them out. I recall Israel and all or most of the US Jewish organizations that matter were in completely on-board for sending in US forces to assist taking down Assad!

  • Softly Bob

    Obama is not the first tyrant in history to have problems with his own generals and to undermine their knowledge and experience. There was another infamous leader who had the same characteristics. This other leader however, was far more decisive than Obama. This other leader also had a fondness for Islam, just like the POTUS, and this same leader had a fondness for propaganda and for spying on his own people.

    Who was this leader, you ask? Well, if only I could remember his name… let me think….. Adolf somebody…….!!

  • USARetired

    Preschoolers in Sunday School are better qualified to make decisions then this Muslim in Sheep’s clothing is. He never mention Assad’s Biological weapons until after the agreement with Russia was finalized. These weapons pose an even greater treat then the Chemical ones. Was he saving them for his Muslim Brotherhood, or playing amateur hour?

  • mtnhikerdude

    Decisions made or not made in regard to the Middle/ Muddle East have no bearing on the incurable cancer afflicting America . The soon to be 20 trillion dollar deficit
    is unsustainable and will be the death of a once great Nation. I am 76 and it appears America will cash in its birth certificate before I cash in mine.
    This administration has Detroited America.

  • EarlyBird

    Hey, how about you come over to my frat house for some good ol’ college hazing, okay? Here’s what’s on the agenda:

    First we’ll make you believe you’re drowning multiple times. Then we will beat you until your nose and cheekbones are broken, then strip you naked and throw you into a pitch dark, cold cement cell that keeps you just on the edge of hypothermia for a week.

    For chuckles we’ll blast music so loud you can’t sleep or think and we’ll hose you down with water too. Oh the giggles which will ensue among my fellow frat boys when you have to sit in your own urine and feces.

    But boy it will be fun when we drag you out of that cell after a week, blindfold you, tie your hands behind your back and rotate you shoulders until they dislocate, and hang your entire body weight from those dislocated shoulders while we beat you.

    I’ll bring the keg, okay?

    • Drakken

      They had it easy compared to what we did to the savages, and the funny thing is, every one of them sung like canaries in a very short period of time.

      • EarlyBird

        Oh….who’s “we” in this sentence, Rambo? Now you’re Extra Special Forces? Blacker than Black Ops? Commando of Commandos? When and where do your exploits end?
        Dude, it’s okay to have been a gung ho marine who served honorably during the peace time ’80s and never fired a shot, now making an honest living some place. No need to play war hero, because you’re not. The language you use exposes you. In LA, every homeless man claims to have been a SEAL or Green Beret. Don’t be like that.

        • steves_59

          What’s your claim to fame and your curriculum vitae as it pertains to the making of war and the terminating of our enemies? “HALO?” Or “Medal of Honor?”
          Or just Madden 2013?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “First we’ll make you believe you’re drowning multiple times. Then we will beat you until your nose and cheekbones are broken, then strip you naked and throw you into a pitch dark, cold cement cell that keeps you just on the edge of hypothermia for a week.”

      Because war against a totalitarian religious movements that worships death and torture should be run strictly according to the rules of political correctness. Any deviation from that proves that “they won” or “we’re no better.”

      Which is not to say that anything goes. But your sappy attacks are useless.

      “I’ll bring the keg, okay?”

      I’m sure you’ve already taken care of that.

      Actual warfare does not have a whole lot to do with hazing. What it does have in common is the fact that (and there’s a good reason why) military organizations still perform hazing rituals. Because your enemy doesn’t love you.

      OK?

  • http://www.shugartmedia.com/ Chris Shugart

    I can’t think of a single leftist who’s comfortable with the U.S. de facto position of Policeman of the World. Granted, it was a responsibility thrust upon us by world events, but we took on the task. The alternatives are gravely dangerous. Yet Obama and his supporters would rather hand the job over to an inept UN or even an anti-american regime rather than confront their own timidness in international relations.

  • xrayeize

    Crippling indecision is a defining trait of pathological narcissism

    • ziggy zoggy

      So is sexual impotence.

      • Aizino Smith

        As much as that would be just deserts it probably is not true.

        The guy does not sit at a desk long enough for that to happen.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Right now you’re probably dancing around in your grandma’s panties, yeah, rubbing yourself in peanut butter. Nut bag.

    • EarlyBird

      You cotinue to offer more and more homosexual/sexual identity confused imagery Village People. Interesting.

      • ziggy zoggy

        I’m sure you wish Brad Pitt were gay. Not that it would matter. Handsome gay guys don’t touch ugly guys.

  • aileen22

    my Aunty Claire got a nearly new gold Volvo XC60 SUV by working part time off of a macbook. check out this site

    w­w­w.Y­a­d­7.c­o­m

    • MrUniteUs1

      Let’s get together. I’ll fill the gas tank.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Can’t you FPM administrators get rid of this $hit? The fact that you can’t block it is understandable but stop leaving it on your threads!

  • MrUniteUs1

    What do mass murderers have in common.
    They’re men. Why?

  • 1Indioviejo1

    Blind as a bat.

  • C. Gee

    Excellent analysis. When you say Obama has outsourced foreign policy to Russia – that is the inevitable result of the inverted nationalism he has been inculcated with by his Moscow-leaning leftist professors and mentors. Perhaps this outsourcing was precisely what Obama meant when he told Medvedev he would have more flexibility after the election: flexibility to do what the left always wanted to do during the cold war – give in to the great socialist empire. The Responsibility to Protect is also an emanation from his friends in academia (the new, lightweight, white-man’s burden) and will be used not to drop bombs on behalf of innocent civilians, but to allow Russia (and China) to sponsor the axis of evil under the guise of “diplomacy”.

  • USARetired

    Not only has the entire world lost respect for O’Bozo, but he has allowed Assad to retain the Biological weapons, which are even more deadly then the chemical ones. And, it is apparent Assad was not the one who used chemical weapons in the first place.The amateur is supporting his Muslim Brotherhood at all costs!

  • hiernonymous

    Last time I checked, the Sunni Awakening was a spontaneous process that American commanders latched onto as a way of saving face and gaining allies, however temporary. They weren’t on our side; but they were enemies of our enemies, and willing to take our help.

    Basically, we badly botched the war; we made pretty much nearly every bad decision that was possible to make; and when the Awakening began to resist AQ, the Americans jumped in, claimed credit for the idea as a ‘strategy,’ and brought down casualties long enough to permit a face-saving exit. It wasn’t a ‘strategy.’ There was still no long-term plan for defusing Sunni-Shi’a tensions. The insurgents would stay suppressed only as long as we were willing to maintain an unsustainable presence in Iraq, and that came at the cost of being unable to commit any meaningful combat forces in Afghanistan. You remember Afghanistan, right? The one where our Iraq adventure gave a beaten Taliban plenty of time to regroup, because we didn’t have enough force to do anything meaningful with the decade we could call the shots there?

    Trying to portray Iraq as a Bush victory thrown away is to be engaging in delusional history.

    As for you comment on casualties, I think you’ll note I made those same points in my own post. My argument is not that there is a constant, a specific number of casualties or even a percentage that will make a particular country quit; but it’s also ahistorical to argue that casualties don’t matter.

    It took me a few reads to understand your last paragraph, and I’m still not sure I’ve got it. Are you arguing that a political faction in the U.S. wished for defeat in order to score political points on an opposing U.S. party? If so, you missed the point of the Tet offensive. Tet was defeated, but it was shocking, because it came at a time that the American public was being assured that everything was under control and the war was effectively won. Tet put the lie to that and undermined public confidence in statements our government made about the war. I don’t think that Republicans were trying to undermine the administration or trying to make us lose for political points. I’ve long suspected that Giap also intended for Tet to eviscerate the Viet Cong so that the NVA, when it took over in the south, would not have a strong cadre of South Vietnamese communists that would challenge NV authority as the state was consolidated, but I cheerfully acknowledge that that’s just speculation.

    Not sure what you think our policy toward Sadr should have been, but you seem to forget how badly confrontation worked out.

    • Aizino Smith

      Are you arguing that a political faction in the U.S. wished for defeat in order to score political points on an opposing U.S. part?

      Yes, (in Tet no but in Iraq exactly so)

      Mistakes
      Bush went in light and the general was right. I am not sure Bush would have been able to get additional troops thru Congress. Well probably, but there was the only budget thing.

      Did the North intend to eviscerate the south? I think so.but I also think that they misjudge their chance of success.

      I think the generals in Vietnam were doing some wishful thinking in terms of body count. but then their war was politically constrained and artificially so. we could not invade the North (Spec Ops occasionally yes; full scale no). We couldn’t bomb the bridges within so many miles of the Chinese border. We could not operate as freely in Cambodia or Laos as the North did without indignant howls of outrage.

      Sunni Awakening was opportunistic. Yes. But COIN always wanted to find some way to work with the locals. So we not blundering along . Al Qaeda kept blowing up civilians shopping at the Souk in Ramadi for example. They did so at least twice in 2007. So yes the Sunnis were sick of Al Qaeda.

      Sadr should have been stripped of rank by Sistani or someone and run out of town back to Iran. Discredited. The CIA or somebody was not trying near hard enough to discredit Sadr by telling the truth or getting the goods on him.

      • hiernonymous

        I agree that the Sunnis got sick of AQ. Point is, AQ wasn’t in Iraq before the invasion; their entry was a consequence, not a cause, of our war; that the Sunnis were willing to cooperate against them was incidental to the overall problem, which was the Sunni fear of and resistance to a probable Shi’a-dominated government bent on revenge.

        That we botched the Sadr piece is part and parcel with botching pretty much everything that happened after Baghdad fell. We awarded the contracts to rebuild infrastructure based on political reasons; for example, we shunned German firms who were better positioned to repair the electrical grid because we wanted to punish Germany for its lack of enthusiasm for the war. So while we were slow to recognize the nature of the war we fought, we simultaneously failed to do what we might have to swiftly restore some semblance of normality and prosperity to Iraq before the influx of jihadis could further destabilize it.

        I don’t think that you and I are in basic disagreement here. My primary objection is to any portrayal of Iraq as any sort of success that was subsequently thrown away; there was no success to throw away.

        • Aizino Smith

          Al Qaeda had been in Iraq. There had been talks with Sadam’s government on more than 1 occasion. As far as we know they were not funded by Iraq ( I do not believe the were) nor were they recruiting or training there.

          Besides hosting 2 factions of the PLO & paying the PLO money, Sadam had an airplane carcass in which to train budding terrorists in high jacking at Salman Pak.

          I believe the war was winnable in 2007 & 2008.

          1st I heard about the German thing. I would have figured the U.S. was mad at them for going around sanctions on Iran. But hey we are the U.S. when we mined Haiphong harbor, our NATO allies squealed like stuck pigs and the Russians just put up with it because it was apart of the game. They were prepared to pay.

          Form what I read one of the biggest mistakes was firing the government and army and starting from scratch. that made a lot of people unemployed with nothing to do. On the flip side if some of them had remained at their job, they probably would have tried to stick to the Shia.

  • JacksonPearson

    Community organizers like Baracky are no por ca-ca in running a Constitutional republic like ours. He still hasn’t proven to be worthy of being a legitimate Article II president, let alone being a world leader! Putin just made a fool of him. So far, he’s been a disaster in every thing that he’s touched!

  • Guest 1811

    Perfect definition of a lawyer in power. That same glove fits 99% of the federal prosecutors and AUSA’s. So no matter what side you are on, NEVER put a lawyer in the whitehouse again!

  • ImTellinYa

    “Where Bush was a pragmatist trying to do what worked…”

    I agree that Obama is a typical lying, cheating, stealing, traitorous Leftist tyrant who doesn’t care if anything he does works as advertised.

    But Bush was no better. Bush created the Housing Bubble by threatening, cajoling and allowing mortgage lenders to drop all ethics and standards for the sole purpose of giving housing loans to third-world savages from Mexico in the insane belief that this would turn these parasites into the brownish equivalent of high-achieving White Republicans. That was politically-correct, Leftist pathology. Bush believed in this. That means Bush was a functional idiot kowtowing to the Leftist narrative.

    911 was an example of domestic terrorism enabled by the fact that we allow third world savages into the U.S. and we are not allowed to give them the close scrutiny that they need and deserve. Bush responded in true Leftist fashion by creating Homeland Security; an oppressive, unconstitutional bunch of thugs that is most eager to target law-abiding, patriotic Whites. Once again, Bush panders to the Left by using a crime committed by third-world savages to oppress the very people the government fears the most; Prosperous Whites.

    Bush strained every nerve to give amnesty to millions of third-world savages from Mexico and import even more millions legally. Bush once again proved to be in the pocket of a treasonous Left.

    If any of these Bush projects “worked” they worked in the sense that they were completely destructive to the U.S. Bush was a Leftist enemy of his own country.

    It is true that Obama has been significantly more destructive than Bush, but Obama and Bush have no significant policy differences. Obama has simply been a more proactive destroyer.

    The sad fact is that our government is, and has been for the past 50 years, the enemy of its own country. We’ve now reached the end game in which the government has finally destroyed the economy, our shared morality, our schools and has facilitated a hostile invasion of third-world savages that the Left has used as its infantry in the war against Whites.

    Our government no longer as any legitimate authority at all. Whites owe the hostile government NO allegiance whatsoever.