Who Lost Iraq?

Arnold Ahlert is a former NY Post op-ed columnist currently contributing to JewishWorldReview.com, HumanEvents.com and CanadaFreePress.com. He may be reached at atahlert@comcast.net.


The evolution of al-Qaeda from Iraq to SyriaIraq’s disintegration may be imminent, as the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appears incapable of stopping the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The terrorist offshoot of al Qaeda now has its sights set on the capital city of Baghdad. Adding to the chaos, the city of Kirkuk was overtaken by Kurdish soldiers absent any resistance by government forces. After having ignored the prescient warnings of Iraq’s fragility post-U.S. abandonment, the Obama administration and Democratic Party’s determination to end America’s involvement in Iraq irrespective of events on the ground is rapidly approaching its inevitable—and disastrous—conclusion.

Those events on the ground are changing dramatically and quickly. On Tuesday, after only five days of resistance, the city of Mosul fell into terrorist hands as ISIS seized government buildings, the airport, and large quantities of U.S.-supplied weaponry, when Iraqi security forces and police reportedly abandoned their posts and joined the 500,000 refugees fleeing the city of 1.8 million residents. ISIS fighters also freed up to 2,400 prisoners from jails in the northern Nineveh province, reprising the successful raids they conducted against the Abu Ghraib and Taji prisons last July. On Wednesday the Turkish consulate was also taken and its diplomatic staff was kidnapped, precipitating an emergency gathering of Turkish officials by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss their options.

Yet by far the most daunting aspect of Mosul’s seizure are reports that the terrorist organization gained access to $500 billion Iraqi dinars, or $425 million, making it one of the richest, if not the richest, terrorist organization in the world. Gunmen initially looted Mosul’s central bank, and according to Atheel al-Nujaifi, the governor of the Nineveh province, they garnered additional funds from numerous banks across the city as well as a “large quantity of gold bullion.” Regional analyst Brown Moses tweeted that such a windfall will “buy a whole lot of Jihad,” further noting that “with $425 million, ISIS could pay 60,000 fighters around $600 a month for a year.”

In Kirkuk, Kurdish security forces known as the “Peshmerga” took control Tuesday of the oil-rich city that has been the focus of a long-running dispute between the central government in Baghdad and the Kurds. The Kurds have autonomous control of their own region in the northern part of the nation, and while Kirkuk sits just outside of that area, the Kurds have long considered it to be their historical capital. And once again, government security forces fled without a fight. “The whole of Kirkuk has fallen into the hands of peshmerga,” said Secretary-General of the Ministry of Peshmerga Jabbar Yawar. “No Iraqi army remains in Kirkuk now.”

Maliki, who in an earlier televised conference called a national emergency while urging the public and government to unite “to confront this vicious attack, which will spare no Iraqi,” alluded to the fact that military was disloyal. He also called for a 10 PM curfew in Baghdad and the surrounding towns, while Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for the formation of “peace units to defend the holy sites of both Muslims and Christians in Iraq, in cooperation with the government.” Other Shi’ite leaders reported that four brigades known as the Kataibe Brigade, the Assaib Brigade, the Imam al-Sadr Brigade and the armed wing of the Badr Organization had been hastily assembled to protect Baghdad and the government. Each group contains 2500-3000 fighters.

Wednesday also saw the capture of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s former hometown, by ISIS forces, but by yesterday, state-run Iraqiya TV claimed the city had been re-captured by government forces. Yet a later report by Al-Sumaria television indicated the battle for control of the city was ongoing.

By late Wednesday, ISIS was joined by Sunni militants alienated from Maliki’s Shi’ite-dominated government, and together they were battling government forces at the northern entrance of Samarra, a city only 70 miles north of Baghdad. Samarra is home to the Askariya Shrine, one of the Shi’ites’ most treasured religious symbols. Its golden dome was shattered by a bomb in 2006 in an effort to ignite a sectarian civil war, and ISIS commanders once again threatened to destroy it if those defending it refused to lay down their arms.

It was initially reported that government soldiers offered little resistance, leading to speculation that they have been ordered to surrender. In an interview, a local commander in the Salahuddin Province that contains the city of Tikrit, confirmed that assessment. “We received phone calls from high-ranking commanders asking us to give up,” he claimed. “I questioned them on this, and they said, ‘This is an order.’ ” Residents of Tikrit also reported that government soldiers willingly gave up their weapons and uniforms to the militants, a notable deviation from the expectation that they would be killed on the spot.

By Thursday, the battle for Samarra had reportedly tilted in the government’s favor. The Long War Journal noted attempts by ISIS to enter the city had been blunted by government forces that stopped an armed convoy from entering the city. Aircraft deployed by the government were part of the equation, as were the aforementioned Shi’ite brigades organized for the battle.

The battle for Tikrit had reportedly turned as well—courtesy of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Two battalions of the Quds Forces have been sent to aid Maliki, and combined Iraqi-Iranian forces have retaken 85 percent of that city, according to security forces from both nations. The combined forces were also helping the government retain control of Baghdad and Najaf and Kabala. While Iran is helping a fellow Shi’ite ally, keeping ISIS out of Najaf and Kabala, which are sacred sites on a par with Mecca and Medina.

Unfortunately, Thursday also saw Iraq’s Sunni and Kurdish factions boycott a meeting of the Iraqi parliament preventing a quorum from being attained for a vote on declaring the national state of emergency requested by Maliki, two days earlier. The factions, already alienated by Maliki’s preferential treatment of the nation’s Shi’ite majority, were adamantly opposed to giving extraordinary powers to the Shi’ite Prime Minister.

That reality was also reflected by reports that a number of former Ba’athist military commanders from the Hussein era had joined forced with ISIS in the effort to overthrow the Maliki regime. “These groups were unified by the same goal, which is getting rid of this sectarian government, ending this corrupt army and negotiating to form the Sunni Region,” said Abu Karam, a senior Baathist leader and a former high-ranking army officer, who said planning for the offensive had begun two years ago. “The decisive battle will be in northern Baghdad. These groups will not stop in Tikrit and will keep moving toward Baghdad.”

In other words, the ultimate stability of the government—and Iraq itself— remains very much in question.

In the meantime, reports indicate that Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider providing air support to his government, in the form of drones, airmen and drone pilots. “What we really need right now are drone strikes and air strikes,” said a senior Iraqi official Wednesday. Such appeals have so far been rebuffed. Bernadette Meehan, spokeswoman for the National Security Council, declined to comment on the requests. “We are not going to get into details of our diplomatic discussions,” she said in a statement. “The current focus of our discussions with the government of Iraq and our policy considerations is to build the capacity of the Iraqis to successfully confront” ISIS. However, on Thursday afternoon, President Obama hinted at some flexibility. “I don’t rule out anything,” he said in response to a question about possible air strikes. “We do have a stake in making sure these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria.”

Such a statement strains credulity. For the last three years the president and his administration have done nothing to mitigate the rise of ISIS, which has transformed itself from a terrorist group into a full blown army that controls a cross-border swath of territory from Mosul up through the Anbar province, and west to the Syrian town of Al Bab on the outskirts of Aleppo. “This organization has grown into a military organization that is no longer conducting terrorist activities exclusively but is conducting conventional military operations,” said retired four-star Army Gen. Jack Keane, who was a key advisor to Gen. David Petraeus during the war in Iraq. “They are attacking Iraqi military positions with company-and battalion-size formations. And in the face of that the Iraqi security forces have not been able to stand up to it.”

That inability is a direct consequence of Obama’s determination to completely withdraw from Iraq in December of 2011, irrespective of events on the ground and advice of military commanders. Withdrawal was precipitated by the president’s failure to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed some U.S. troops to remain in country. And while the media prefer to blame Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the fault lies squarely with a president who demonstrated a calculated indifference towards negotiating a deal in 2011 similar to the one George W. Bush procured in 2008 under far more difficult circumstances.

The result was President Obama’s commitment of only 3000-5000 troops to Iraq following the 2011 withdrawal. That number seriously undercut the recommendations of his military commanders who had asked for 20,000 troops to carry out such missions as counterterrorist operations, diplomat support — and the training and support for Iraqi security forces. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen would have been satisfied with 10,000 troops, but Obama rejected this. The Maliki government, already risking a domestic backlash for keeping any troops in the nation, concluded that the political risks involved weren’t worth it when Obama was so transparently unserious.

His fellow Democrats are no better. Ever since the 2004 presidential campaign, when anti-war activist Howard Dean temporarily vaulted to the head of the Democratic pack of presidential contenders, many of the same Democrats who initially supported the war began their long and ultimately successful campaign to undermine it in order to gain political advantage.  This includes current Secretary of State John Kerry, who had said there was “no question in my mind that Saddam Hussein has to be toppled one way or another,” Vice President Joe Biden, who said that “Saddam either has to be separated from his weapons or taken out of power,” and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who cast her vote for war authorization “with conviction.” By the 2004 election, however — after unanimously voting to demolish the country’s existing political infrastructure — these Democrats spoke of little else but abandoning Iraq and allowing it to degenerate into the sectarian chaos on display today.

After ten years, the Left’s wish for Iraq has finally been realized. Democrats are now in a lurch justifying the descent of the country. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Thursday, Clinton hypocritically bemoaned the “dreadful, deteriorating situation,” which she herself played a role in engineering, and claimed she “could not have predicted the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq and trying to erase boundaries to create a new state.” However, the rise of ISIS, due to the dramatic withdrawal of U.S. forces, has been predicted for quite some time. Just last February, a threat assessment by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency asserted that the ISIS “probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria . . . as demonstrated recently in Ramadi and Fallujah,” due to the weak security environment “since the departure of U.S. forces at the end of 2011.”

Obama, Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party received ample warning about where their sabotage of Iraq would lead. And despite the clear disaster unfolding in the country, Obama and his party will reprise the same inadequate troop level/scheduled departure strategy in Afghanistan. Does a similar fiasco await us there? Americans should expect nothing less from a party at the helm that conflates abandoning wars with winning them.

*

Don’t miss Daniel Greenfield on this week’s Glazov Gang discussing “How Obama Surrendered Iraq”:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • GinaBowdensry

    like
    Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
    on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

    • Habbgun

      She earned $8130 on the computer but she would have been more comfortable on the bed.

      • J.B.

        Maybe she does webcam shows with donkeys.

        • Habbgun

          Her mom has enough self respect she won’t prostitute herself with Democrats. Unless you meant the animal in which case maybe.

        • reader

          sounds like Thad Cochran’s memoirs.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Flagged as inappropriate comment …

  • Dyer’s Eve

    How long before Obama invites his Islamo-fascist mates for tea and a bend over session in the Oval Orifice… erm, sorry, Office?

    • Webb

      Uhhh, that started in 2008.

  • Christoper Logan

    We never had it. The Christians there have had it worse than ever there. Nation building was doom to fail from the get go. America needs to stop strengthening Islam, and worry about our own backyard. It past time we stop all Muslim immigration.

    • wildjew

      Back in 2003, Daniel Pipes recommended the Bush administration install an America-friendly “strongman” in place of Saddam to keep order in Iraq. None of our geniuses on the right would hear of it. By hook or by crook we were going to spread Jeffersonian democracy in a savage part of the world.

      “The desire for freedom resides in every human heart. And that desire cannot be contained forever by prison walls, or martial laws, or secret police. Over time, and across the Earth, freedom will find a way. (George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly, September 21, 2004)

      “Like its successor, the Bush administration discouraged all inquiry into Islamic doctrine by anyone seeking to understand Muslim enmity. It simultaneously indulged two mutually exclusive delusions: (a) that as a “religion of peace,” Islam is one of America’s best strategic assets in the battle against “extremism”; and (b) that the West is capable of cultivating the reform and moderation needed to cure the dysfunction and anguish that pervade Islamic societies.

      Inexorably, this has fed President Barack Obama’s preferred delusion: Since Islam is both virtuous and filled with contempt for the West, the West must be to blame for Islam’s fury….”

      “Spring Fever, The Illusion of Islamic Democracy” by Andrew McCarthy

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Thank God someone remembers Pipes’ early recommendation. I used to refer to it often back then. It was very hard to get my friends on the right to consider his position. It was very difficult to get conservatives to listen to sober and constructive criticism while leftists were vilifying our nation and troops.

        Pipes was one of the few. Martin Kramer, a student of Bernard Lewis, was another who opposed nations-building. Angelo Codevilla wrote many articles against Bush’s folly in the Claremont Review (also see his book “No Victory, No Peace.”)

        Also see John Agresto’s “Mugged by Reality” for a confession of a former Bush administrator in Iraq during the 1st year of the occupation.

        • Gee

          I remember talking with Mr. Pipes back then. As much as I think him a very intelligent man I told him just how wrong he was.

          Taking out Saddam was not a great idea, it was not a bad idea. Staying in Iraq was a terrible idea.

          • Texas Patriot

            Taking out Saddam Hussein was necessary to prevent even the remotest possibility that he was still developing nuclear weapons in breach of the cease-fire agreement that left him in power after Gulf War I. The truth of the matter is that allowing suitcase nukes to fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists would be the end of the West as we know it. Where we made our mistake in Iraq was not in taking out Saddam Hussein, which we accomplished in a matter of weeks with minimum U.S. casualties, but in remaining in Iraq indefinitely to take control of its oil. It is an historical fact that the Iraqi people initially did greet the U.S. forces as their “liberators” from the dreaded Saddam Hussein terror apparatus, but they quickly turned against us once they realized that we were there to take control of their oil. It was the worse case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the entire history of the United States of America.

          • Pete

            We took control of their oil!

            Yessirreee BOB!

            I can remember signing the contract myself giving that oil to Exon and Shell.

          • Texas Patriot

            Pete: I can remember signing the contract myself giving that oil to Exon and Shell.

            When did you sign that contract and under whose authorization and authority did you do it?

          • Pete

            Are you trying to kill me? I almost died laughing!

            The 2 exclamation points were a clue.

            The statement “Yessirreee BOB” was a blazing sign that I was being sarcastic.

            You do know that the French, Chinese and other bid on the oil contracts?

            Not only that the Chinese got many of them.

            So are you going to tell me this was a war for oil?

            **************************************************************

            Firms bid for Iraq oil contracts

            http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2009/06/200963064717518404.html

            Firms Chasing Iraq Oil Contracts on ‘Level Field’

            “Some 31 companies are competing for contracts to operate six major oilfields and two major gas fields.”

            http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=77452&hmpn=1

            China agrees $3bn Iraq oil deal

            http://www.aljazeera.com/business/2008/08/200882813538226440.html

            Thanks To 3 Senators, China Entrenched In Iraqi Oil For 20 Years

            http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2010/05/19/Thanks-To-3-Senators–China-Entrenched-In-Iraqi-Oil-For-20-Years

          • Texas Patriot

            Pete:So are you going to tell me this was a war for oil?

            I’ve never suggested it was a “war for oil”. It was a legitimate exercise in the removal of Saddam Hussein from power because he failed to verify that he was not producing weapons of mass destruction as he was required to do under the cease-fire agreement which left him in power after Gulf War I. We accomplished that objective in a matter of weeks with a minimum number of U.S. casualties. Where we made our mistake was remaining in Iraq to try to transform it into a Jeffersonian democracy, and when the Iraqi people realized that we intended to remain as occupiers in almost complete control of all aspects of their country, including its abundant oil wealth, their attitude changed dramatically from their initial reaction of joy and gratitude as a result of their being liberated from the bootheel of Saddam Hussein;s terror apparatus. As I stated above, our decision to remain in Iraq after accomplishing our original objective was the worst example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the history of the United States of America.

          • Pete

            ” I’ve never suggested that Iraq was a “war for oil”. ”

            Uhmmm? Sure.

            You sure pounced on my comment faster than a fly lands on ____!

            And all of this after my post was dripping with sarcasm.

            You surely wanted to find what you thought was there.

          • Texas Patriot

            From now on I’ll be copying and pasting your remarks before I respond to them.

          • Pete

            Go head. Should I feel threatened?

            Will it make more arguments more or less logical?

          • Texas Patriot

            Pete: Should I feel threatened? Will it make more arguments more or less logical?

            Not at all. But it may serve in a helpful way to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.

          • Pete

            “As I stated above, our decision to remain in Iraq after accomplishing our original objective was the worst example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the history of the United States of America.”

            After South Vietnam fell, Cambodia and Laos fell in 1975 after we cut off aid.

            “In 1975, the Pathēt Lao forces on the Plain of Jars supported by North Vietnamese heavy artillery and other units began advancing westward”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Laos_since_1945

            “On New Year’s Day 1975, Communist troops launched an offensive which, in 117 days of the hardest fighting of the war, collapsed the Khmer Republic”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia#Khmer_Rouge_regime

            Neither Syria nor Jordan have fallen.

          • Gee

            Syria is gone, full blown civil war, Jordan will not be viable next year

          • Pete

            It might be a stalemate. I would not bet against the Shia or Iran. For the next year maybe 2, Hezbollah, the Alawaites, the Shia in general and Iran will be around. I expect Assad to control as much territory or maybe a little more.

            I could be wrong.

            I have no clue about Jordan.

          • Drakken

            If the ISIS turn their attention to Jordan, it will turn into one h*ll of a sh*tshow in a hurry.

          • Pete

            I do not think the Hashemite dynasty can defend itself. A 3rd to half the population consider themselves Palestinians. They have no love for the government and no loyalty.

            People I know visited there a few years back and they said there were armored cars on every street corner. An exaggeration to be sure, but the point is a good one. the Jordanian army kicked out the PLO in 1971 but could they do it again?

            Unless Saudi Arabia, the U.S., Israel (Britain) assisted them, I don’t think they could withstand a determined guerilla/terrorist campaign.

          • Drakken

            Maybe Abdullah will take a page out of his fathers playbook when he dealt with the PLO back in the early 70′s? But alas, I think your right.

          • J.B.

            I can remember bending you over and making you call me daddy.

        • http://loganswarning.com/ Christoper Logan

          The problem with Pipes is that he actually respects Islam.

          • Pete

            There are aspects of its’ theology I like. There are aspects of it that are not much different than Christianity.

            Monks would pray 5 times a day or so. Muslims pray 5 times a day. There is not much difference there except in Islam everyone is praying or suppose to be praying or suppose to be praying on penalty of death by the Muslim equivalent of church lady on steroids.

            I actually met church lady in my hometown. They (there were 2 of them) rang the doorbell and invited the family to their church. My parents were very patient with them and they wouldn’t leave for an hour. After they left and my parents discussed it a little bit in front of us “chil’run”, I asked why they did not throw them out after their initial spiel or 5 minutes. I was told you don;t do that. Small town politics or they work at the same place of business or something. Heck of it was they were the same denomination as we were and there were only 2 churches of that denomination. the original and the break away.

            Dana Carvey got great mileage out of his character church Lady. There had to be an element of truth to it or it would have been a complete farce, a total lie, and not funny. Add to it the Specter of the Moral Majority that disestablished decades ago, but which Liberals tell their children about at bedtime like the Romans used to tell their children about Hannibal. Really?

            Point is as bad as the American version of church lady was or was thought to be, I will take them any day over the Muslim version.

            The Muslim version comes with switches to beat people (if you have the mild mannered version) or swords to behead people. Is there really a doubt about which version American or Muslim that is more conducive to health?

      • kaz

        an America friendly strongman. that description fits shah resa pavlovi. the man so hated by our liberals that he could not even enter our country for medical treatment. installing an America friendly strongman would just have provided a target for the vitriol of our dear liberals. what we needed was a hate everyone strongman, disliked even by liberals, but feared by iran. hmmmmm. sounds like saddam Hussein, an equal opportunity human rights violator. due to the special efforts of gwbush, aided and abetted by the worst criminals the democratic party could place in office, we now have the only thing worse than saddam Hussein. sound a bit like hero Obama’s accomplishment in Libya?

        • wildjew

          There was a faction advising Bush who believed “containing” Saddam was the best policy since he had been successfully contained they argued since the Gulf War. Advocates of nation building and implanting democracy in the Muslim world prevailed over advocates of containment.

          • J.B.

            Saddam had not been contained. He had sponsored and aided plenty of terrorist attacks, defied the terms imposed on him after the Gulf War and tried assassinate Bush Sr.

          • wildjew

            You are correct. Iraq was considered a state sponsor of terrorism according to the State Department under Saddam Hussein. Saddam gave money to Palestinian suicide bomber families. Do you think Iraq (along with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran) was behind the 9/11/2001 attacks?

          • J.B.

            No but they probably assisted with financing, personnel, training and weaponry.

          • wildjew

            Financing, personnel, training and weaponry for the September attacks in New York and Washington? Americans were led to believe Iraq had a hand in the atrocities. You have evidence of it?

          • J.B.

            He helped Al Qaeda with financing, training, weaponry and shelter in Iraq. That is a matter of public record.

            I don’t know what you are referring to when you claim Americans were led to believe Saddam played a direct part in 911. Who made that claim? Certainly not the Bush Administration.

          • wildjew

            I realize the following is from Wikipedia but it does not differ from anything else I have read, though I’ve got to be honest the Iraq war was not my issue (or problem) with former President Bush. Consequently, I have a couple of questions for you just below these two paragraphs.

            “In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi PresidentSaddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might “conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States”,[2] basing the administration’s rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others.

            “The consensus of intelligence experts has been that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in contact but it never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.”

            Here are my two questions for you.

            1) President Bush and his administration officials (Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, etc.) consistently maintained Israel illegitimately “occupied” Palestinian Muslim land. Was the allegation by Bush that Israel is an illegal occupier or Muslim land true or was it a lie?

          • J.B.

            You knew better than to quote Wikipedia but you did it anyway. Your questions have nothing to do with the overthrow of Saddam but yeah, Bush said plenty of stupid things about the Psuedostinian jihad against Israel and islam.

          • wildjew

            Right. I admit I am not up to speed on Iraq and its alleged direct involvement in the 9/11/2001 attacks in New York and Washington. If you’ve got something definitive why not produce it here and now? Beyond that you just wrote a stupid thing, so much so I wonder about your honesty. George W. Bush said “plenty of stupid things” as in Obama says stupid things, or Bush repeatedly lied about Israel and Islam? Which is it? Bush said stupid things or he lied?

          • J.B.

            WTF are you raving about? Who said anything about Iraq aiding 911 except you?

          • wildjew

            Are you a loon? Yes, you are a loon.

            Just above you wrote: “(Saddam) helped Al Qaeda with financing, training, weaponry and shelter in Iraq. That is a matter of public record,” and “they (Iraq) probably assisted with financing, personnel, training and weaponry.”

            Go away.

          • gerry

            Well,what did Bill Clinton say about Saddam?

          • wildjew

            What did Clinton say? Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? In the lead up to the 2003 war in Iraq, I don’t know that Saddam’s WMD program was in dispute. Is that what you are referring to?

          • gerry

            Saddam contained the UN,he bought the all organisation.This is well documented.By the way,what happened to the Volcker commission?As you say lots of terrorists lived in Iraq during Saddam.

          • J.B.

            Conveniently forgotten.

        • J.B.

          And soon Afghanistan.

      • Christoper Logan

        Bush did the world a lot of damage by parroting the “Islam means peace” line. Thanks for posting that.

        • DB1954

          I agree he did a lot of damage, but that wasn’t the line. It’s important to get the details right.

          “Islam is a religion of peace.”

          George W. Bush.

          • Christoper Logan
          • Johnny Palestine

            The Bush Criminal family has done irreparable damage to the US and the West; beginning with the traitorous Prescott Bush to George Jr. They love war given that their sons will at best see limited action at the canteen.

            Both wars under Bush1 and Bush2 were completely unecessary and not vital to US interests. Only vital to the Rockefellers and Rothschilds to take over Iraq and Kuwaiti gold and central banks.

            The US is in a constant war mode because this is what the founders of the CFR, ie., Rockefeller, Mellon, Dupont, etc. want.

            Hitlary in their eyes will be a good president and her bowing to CFR, Pilgrim Society and the Federal Reserve will cause the deaths to many American soldiers.

          • ChaiseKerswellmmy

            like
            Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
            on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

          • morriscat

            J.muslimstine , how sick did you get from eating that Camel dung ? Maybe that desert sun ?

        • http://belajarforex.guru/ belajarforeximf
      • Americana

        One thing I don’t remember Daniel Pipes doing was listing the people who would fit the strongman role and who had the affiliations to make that installment of that person as Iraq’s strongman feasible. It’s all well and good to theorize about what you’d do based on the ideal scenarios that have worked in the past in the region, but it’s far more difficult to accurately guess at what the CURRENT foreign policy COURSE should be and what THE OUTCOME will be. I mean, the strongman is ALWAYS the go-to policy choice for the Middle East but it doesn’t indicate anything other than it’s the most obvious choice. Besides, there is absolutely no proof that a strongman will be able to keep the lid on these events in the Middle East without massive bloodletting and wars which would also likely have demanded that we proffer American arms, if not actual American troop commitments.

        • wildjew

          Did you believe in Bush’s democratization scheme? I didn’t. Remember what happened to Israel when Bush and Rice demanded Israel allow Hamas killers to run in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Palestinians elected Hamas! Remember Bush and Rice said Hamas was legitimately elected in free and fair elections and then he refused to honor the will of the Palestinians peoples? It was folly and delusion to democratize savages wasn’t it?

          We know in Iraq Saddam’s Baathist colleagues thought the Bush people would let them take power and succeed Saddam. But Bush and his “neo-conservative” advisers rejected that idea. Look at ancient empires, Rome, Babylon, etc. When they conquered a nation or territory, they put in their own Rome-friendly or Babylon-friendly puppet king often chosen from among the conquered people. If the puppet king rebelled, what did they do? They killed his sons and daughters in his presence and then gouged his eyes out and then the next puppet king did not rebel.

          You wrote: “Besides, there is absolutely no proof that a strongman will be able to keep the lid on these events in the Middle East without massive bloodletting and wars…”

          Come on. How do you think Saddam kept stability in Iraq? He was ruthless. When one or another restless faction rose up there was massive bloodletting. That is what Pipes was recommending in a strongman. Sadly. Because these peoples are not equipped or ready for self-rule apparently and I am beginning to wonder if Americans have lost the ability to rule themselves otherwise why did they elect this nightmare, Barack Hussein Obama who will rule with an iron fist.

          • Americana

            That was then, wildjew, this is now. We did make a crucial mistake in not authorizing the Iraqi army to remain in power w/the removal of selected Baathist officers and selecting someone to complement the Iraqi Army’s nationalist position. There are enormous stressors of tribalism and factionalism weighing against democracy in the Middle East but I am sure it will eventually win out though that will take decades. Being ruthless works but only for so long and it never is able to suppress the inevitable explosion.

          • Drakken

            You really don’t know what your talking about do you? The ruthless always rule in Islamic nations and it will be that way until islam is eradicated.

          • Americana

            There are a large number of moderate secularists in all these Islamic countries, Drakken, whether you believe it or not. The fact that there are always these Muslim power-hungry true believers lurking in the background is what the secularists have to confront for the foreseeable future.

            As for the failure of the U.S. to put the Baathist generals and the Iraqi army back in charge after our victory, I’d agree, that was a no-brainer. We were worried about them reconfiguring themselves as something they would never have become — a threat on the immediate scale of these vicious true believing idiots.

          • Drakken

            The west continues to make the same failures and complete lack of imagination which always leads to the wrong conclusions and lack of inertia which always leads us to be reactive instead of proactive.

          • J.B.

            Large number of moderate secularists? That idiotic claim doesn’t even make sense. Moderate religious/secularists? Moderate islamopithecinrs in islamic countries are rarer than deodorant.

          • teq

            “Islamopithecines” I like that ;) Accent on the 4th syllable, right? As in “Is lam-o PITH-i-cine.”
            Yes, talking about moderate Islamopithicines is like talking about moderate Nazis. Imagine if FDR and Churchill had sought to find the “moderate Nazis” so they could put them in charge of Germany.

          • Gee

            You are delusional – there are no moderate and/or secularists in any Muslim regime

          • Americana

            I didn’t say within a Muslim regime, I said there are moderate Muslims within each and every Muslim nation.

          • Gee

            What both of them – they say nothing to stay alive?

          • Pete

            “There are a large number of moderate secularists in all these Islamic countries”

            In all? that is a pretty broad, sweeping statement. You know what logicians and test prep people say about broad sweeping statements.

            Let’s take Turkey. I would say that there are or may be many secularists there. Certainly there were gay pride parade that got bigger every year at the turn if the century (It almost made me think people like JMG might be right about some things. ALMOST). I am not saying that the LGBT community shows absolutely means that society is largely secular or even trending that way. What i am saying is that maybe it is a bell weather in measuring tolerance.

            At the same time large swaths of the Turkish population seems to be more Islamicist as seen to PM Erdogan’s electoral victories and the rise of attacks on tourists. now corruption will likely bring Erdogan down at some point, but that does not mean secularists come to power.

            I would have though that Erdogan would be gone by now and frogged marched to jail. Is it going to happen in another year or two? If not I think he retire and it might be his successor that gets Nicolae Ceaușescu’d.

            Where are the secularists?

          • J.B.

            First you claimed that America couldn’t have replaced Saddam with an American ally and now you say it should have. What tribe are Batthists from and why is it that the Taliban, Saddam, Qaddafi and Mubarek were all overthrown by America rather than your “inevitable explosion?” In fact, since when has any islamic regime was overthrown from within at all except for the Shah’s in Iran?

            Do you think at all, trolltard?

          • Pete

            “We did make a crucial mistake in not authorizing the Iraqi army to remain in power w/the removal of selected Baathist officers”

            That is a “what if”.

            I kind of believe it myself. Then again the British were working with the military and police of Yemen ahead of independence. It turnout the the Yemeni military and police were the same as the guerillas.

            You can posit that theory, but how do you wargame it so as to get an ideal of its’ chances of success ahead of time?

          • Pete

            “That was then, this now”

            Well that solves everything and explains everything and ends all doubt.

            Electing Hamas was then. It was a mistake. that was then, but now this time it will work.

            English Liberty took centuries to get to the state it extant in the 19th and 20th centuries. there is nothing written that it takes a thousand years say from the Magna Carta until now. But it might take three to several generations until it gets cement ed in. Even then it is not guaranteed.

            There is nothing one way about historical developments such as freedom. It is constantly advancing or retreating. If it is in equilibrium, it is a temporary state and an unstable equilibrium.

            You have studied stable and unstable equilibriums, I hope. Definite Maybe?

        • Drakken

          It was a simple solution to a simple problem, you put Saddamn Generals in charge and they would have had the Iraqi army up and running in no time. They would have had the insight to deal with Sadr’s little jihadist army of savages and the Iranian threat by dealing with them in the tried and true arab method. As to your worry about massive amount of bloodletting? That is the way these bloody savages deal with each other. Never get in the way for it solves its own problems.

          • Sussex Girl

            The Iraqis are Persian. not Arab. The common link between them is Islam, not ethnicity.

          • Drakken

            In Iran they are inbred Persians, In Iraq they are arab. You flunked lunch didn’t you? Much less know anything about simple geography.

          • morriscat

            How did you get into this discussion . Suspect Girl.

        • J.B.

          Right. You lefties love to claim that America has installed dictators all over the world, but now you claim it was impossible in Iraq after Saddam’s regime was overthrown. Leftists suffer from even more inconsistent thinking than the islamopithecines do.

      • Johnny Palestine

        .. and a strongman with ties to Rockfeller and George Soros to take over the Central Bank. Pipes is also CFR. His father was mostl likely CFR or Pilgrim as well.

        • wildjew

          I believe you are right, Pipes is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    • J.B.

      Nation building worked in Germany and Japan.

      • Americana

        Nation building worked in European countries and in Japan because those folks recognize defeat and are willing to move beyond defeat. In the Middle East, on the other hand, we have nations that have been cobbled together out of pieces decided upon by European colonialist governments and post WW ! and WW II expediency. There is NO COMPARISON to the type of nation building desired within the Middle East.

        • reader

          “those folks recognize defeat and are willing to move beyond defeat”

          Yes, that’s exactly what Hitler, Himler, Goering, Goebbels and the rest of them did.

          • Americana

            True, ;) but somehow I doubt we’ll have many of these ISIS guys willing to take that same route beyond defeat that the top Nazis did without first taking a whole lot of people w/them. I’m still furious we didn’t catch some of those top dogs for the Nuremberg Trials. (I’ll never fail to be amazed at what they were able to persuade people to do. UGGGHH.)

          • reader

            But you didn’t seeem to notice that Germany and Japan were flattened to rubble at the end of the war. Did we do that? No. Except, Clinton sure did flatten Belgrade, but he is getting credit from the likes you for not treating good old Saddam too harshly.

          • Americana

            I’m not sure I’m understanding you. I would have thought it was general knowledge just how flattened Germany and Japan were after the war and that Allied forces were the ones that did the flattening. I’m not following you on the whole Clinton/Belgrade thing nor about Saddam Hussein’s treatment and final disposition (executed). Please explain.

          • reader

            By did we do it, I meant did we do it to Al Qaeda, HAMAS and Hezbollah – AKA present day nazis. As for Clinton, he bombed Belgrade as fast as he was downing burgers, but it was not him who hanged Saddam, and you marxists are very proud of him for it. Clearer now?

          • Americana

            As a non-Marxist, you’ve still got me waaaay confused. We cannot conquer al Qaeda, HAMAS and Hezbollah in the same way we conquered the Nazis. These are simply two different types of conflict w/different parameters and rules. There should be the creation of a Palestinian state and then we see where we stand, politically and militarily.

          • reader

            Yes, it’s very different. How different? I don’t know, but it’s different. It’s like saying, there should be a creation of Reich and then we see where we stand, politically and militarily. Even FDR would be disgusted with the Obamanoid marxists like you.

          • Americana

            Listen, reader, there are millions of Palestinians. They demand a state. The fact they were not a state in their previous incarnation is neither here nor there. That is a similar, if not identical, situation to the Jews if you’ll recall prior to the creation of Israel. There is a risk inherent in forming a Palestinian state but, from my perspective, you don’t face ANY LESS OF A RISK by not forming one. That is my stance. Israel is now a U.N. member state and thus has protections that weren’t available to her specifically before. If you think that by waiting until the Middle East is in even greater chaos, you’re giving the Israelis the advantage, I don’t think so, but you are entitled to your opinion. However, don’t slander my opinion w/NONSENSICAL SLURS just because you don’t see the situation as I’ve drawn it. You’re welcome to slander my opinion on the basis of strategy or sociology or any number of other reasons, but don’t go the direction of this stupid socio-political morass of slurs that are being used to bolster the fears and anger of American Jews and American voters in general.

          • reader

            There is not such people as Palestinians.
            Palestinian Arabs never demanded “state” when they were confined to Egyptian Gaza and Jordanian West Bank.
            They ALWAYS demanded the genocide of the Jews.
            Arabs have 22 states.
            The Jews have one state.
            We all know where you stand and who you are.

          • Americana

            You KNOW DIDDLY SQUAT about me other than that you find my opinions uncomfortable. No, you really don’t know where I stand and who I am or many of you wouldn’t be uttering these awful things and ignoring the realities of what I’m writing. You can’t simply overwhelm the entire public discourse by claiming that everyone who voices fears or concerns about managing this situation is anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Semitic because I’m telling Israelis and the world’s Jews that there are only two options as I read the situation and there’s only one option I consider to be viable in the long run.

            Arabs of MANY ETHNICITIES have 22 states. Jews only have ONE STATE. Sounds simple but it’s not. That’s not the same thing as surrendering one’s GEOGRAPHIC STATEHOOD and all that entails — generations of homes built in one area, several hundred-year old olive orchards, etc. Founding the Jewish state was never as simple as it was perceived to be by the relevant parties, the Jews and the various Arab ethnic groups. The Arab ethnic groups that were in power made a decision to dispossess the less politically powerful Palestinians in order to secure their own best interests and the European powers that were involved did the same. That was known by all concerned.

            The Palestinians never demanded a state at that point because they believed they would retake ALL their land by calling on their fellow Arabs to help them by declaring war. These are Arab states that didn’t want to adopt the Palestinians into their countries as citizens so why should they be forced to accept them? However, retaking their entire former lands are no longer even remotely a possibility for the Palestinians, whether politically and militarily, and they should have realized that AGES AGO but they’ve had crazy fools driving their public discourse.

            Arabs may always demand the genocide of the Jews however the world’s Jews KNEW THIS was the case the entire time they were DEMANDING A JEWISH STATE In that area. There was enough outcry from the Arabs that the Jews were effectively committing themselves to this militarist state of existence from then on by continuing to follow the Zionist pursuit of THAT LAND in THAT REGION. That’s all I’m saying about their choice of Israel as a Jewish homeland. Basing one’s government decisions on Biblical prophecy is not the most analytical way to select the best way forward.

          • Drakken

            To the victors go the spoils and the arabs are of one ethnicity shortbus, not many. Your ragheaded inbred friends will push and push until they get what they deserve.

          • teq

            Arabs may be of one ethnicity but they’re not all the same religion, as I’m sure you know. Christian Arabs have never been involved in terrorism that I know of, and they don’t wear rags on their heads nor honor-kill their womenfolk. I know some Lebanese folks who are Marionite Christians. They’re perfectly normal. No crazy stuff.
            It’s the religion that’s deadly. Islam does something to the brain. Whatever your ethnicity, you go crazy if you’re brought up on Allah.

          • reader

            “Arabs may always demand the genocide of the Jews however the world’s Jews KNEW THIS was the case the entire time they were DEMANDING A JEWISH STATE In that area.”

            Oh, ok then – if it’s ok with you. That’s how I know who you are. And if I write it here, my comment will be erased. But I KNOW IT.

          • Americana

            Why on earth would you think ANOTHER Jewish/Israeli genocide would “be OK w/me?” The point is I find it unbelievable that the Jews accepted that land and pretended then and pretend NOW that the opinions of ALL the residents were taken into account by those making the decision. Your pretense that the Arabs should set aside all their ridiculous historical animosity just because Israel was declared is also one of those things I can’t comprehend. You all can’t say the Muslims are intransigent animals one minute and then pretend that this was going to be a miraculous kumbaya situation between the two nations the next minute.

            That fact has nothing to do w/the fact it’s a good thing Israel was created. They are TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. Go ahead and write your opinion so I know what to write as a rebuttal. No other comments that have been damning of someone have been removed unless they’re identified as being not pro-Israel enough that I have seen. I’m pro-Israeli in a way that you obviously refuse to understand and refuse to countenance. Nonetheless, I feel mine is a legitimate position and I’m not going to be insulted into surrendering that position. You either persuade me to move my stance w/fantastically smart diplomatic solutions or ideas or not.

          • reader

            My pretense that what? Nitwit, my pretense is that barbarians who are dead set on mass genocide of other people on religious grounds – and that’s all it is – should be mercilessly defeated by all means necessary. Full stop.

          • Americana

            But they’re not dead set on mass genocide solely on religious grounds. Or, rather, they are but it’s supplemented by a whole lot of nationalistic fervor over stolen land. You have to at least be honest about this. If I agreed w/you they were interested in genocide without having the nationalist issue underlying their genocidal aims then I’d be a nitwit.

          • reader
          • Americana

            It’s about time for you to look at the Balfour Project web site, reader.

            balfourproject.org

          • reader

            Your sophisticated ability in skillfully changing the subject is simply breath taking. Well. Not really. It’s quite pathetic, actually.

          • reader

            and it’s not their land, by the way. They’re the one trying to steal it.

          • Drakken

            It has zero to do with nationalistic fervor, it is islam to the bloody core, for once in Islamic hands, it is always in Islamic hands. It is not stolen land, it is land won in war. To the victors go the spoils.

          • morriscat

            Stolen land ?? What the !! Just a bunch of rocks on deserted hills that nobody claimed during the Turkish or British rule .
            Land where the groves were planted were bought from Arabs with Jewish money .
            Jews were denied even to pray at their ancient holy sites by the Jordanians .
            Americana try living in one of your glorious Arab lands with you high talking BS .

          • kertitor

            Biblical prophecy was not the reason of RECONQUERING Israel. Americana you are full of wisdom, and you know how things should work, so please move to some Arab country, to spread your great ideas.

          • Americana

            You’ll have to explain how it is you see this “reconquering Israel” then, keritor, if Biblical prophecy was not the underlying principle of Zionism?

          • morriscat

            Gee we really don’t know Who you are . Those poor Arabs that became Palestinians after 1967 really need that State so they can get close enough to accomplish their goal . Destruction of Israel and that will solve all the problems for the Islamic murderers and their fifth century mentality.
            Americana’ s America next with the aid of your kind .

          • Webb

            This is about as close to a perfect situation for them as they’re going to get, i.e., vanquished and kept behind a high wall and supported with handouts from the “international community.” They are at heart murderous jihadists with no future who are utterly incapable of self government. Nobody can give them a future, much less a state.

          • Drakken

            The fakestinians will never ever get their jihadist state, period, those bloody inbred savages are sowing the seeds of their own destruction and I say it is long overdue. Time for a taste of Carthage.

          • Americana

            I’m sad to hear you say that, Drakken, but you are dedicated to strum und drang. (That little phrase is not beloved by my spell-checker.) Stay safe and make the right choices for yourself as this heats up. I’m not sure what your contract demands or what your conscience demands, but be safe.

          • Drakken

            Quit listening to your leftist journalist friends and get your azz on the ground and live it, taste it, feel it and see it for yourself.

          • Americana

            They’re not all Leftists and you’d be surprised what they arrive at for cultural insights that wouldn’t necessarily make it into an article. Besides which, I trust both my sisters implicitly for accurate representations about cultural conditions. They are neither of them kind about the whole superiority of Muslims thing and they were less than enthused w/the ultra-religiosity that forced them to wear hijab and/or djellabas. I’m also convinced by what those refugees have to say who’ve ended up in the Boston area.

            There were a few notable early 19th century women who made it to the Levant as travelers and/or whatevers and their lives were fascinating. Of course, that was an entirely different era that didn’t include jihad and this ultra-crapola religiosity business.

          • Pete

            ” We cannot conquer al Qaeda, HAMAS and Hezbollah in the same way we conquered the Nazis. ”

            Sure we can.

            In the words of Jimmy Malone “What are you prepared to do?”

          • Americana

            If we could conquer Muslims the same way we conquer Nazis, we wouldn’t keep running into the same old, same old, would we?

          • Pete

            Trolling hard are we?

            I am an auditor by training and by experience, so I know a little something about human failings, efficiency and fairness.

            You want to try again?

          • morriscat

            Nut job thinks another Islamic state will solve the problem . Whew , gosh by golly . How are the other inmates harmonica ?

      • Christoper Logan

        That is because Nazism and Japanese Imperialism where not allowed to rule. That is completely different than keeping the enemy ideology of Islam in the picture.

        • Americana

          Very true that we didn’t allow those countries to return to a functioning political status where those elements were included in the post-war governments.

        • J.B.

          True but I never claimed islam should rule anything.

          • wildjew

            Then you are giving the middle finger (per your image) to former President Bush.

      • Drakken

        They are civilized nations, the muslims will never be.

        • J.B.

          They are civilized now. The islamopithecines will never be civilized, but Germany and Japan were far more capable of fighting to get rid of the American reconstruction programs. America shouldn’t have tried to civilize the rock apes but it should have installed somebody to keep order and we should bomb ISIS off the face of the Earth.

        • gerry

          This is what the Japanese were saying.

      • wildjew

        Remember “total war, unconditional surrender” ? Where did it happen anywhere in the Muslim world?

      • Gee

        Only after America imposed democracy at the end of a bayonet. Remember those were only political parties.

        Islam is a cult

  • Richard Fontaine

    It really doesn’t matter what we think, the State Media will blame it all on Bush. Both Bushes.

    • Bill

      Bushes, both of them, are War Criminals.
      As is Bill Clinton and Obama. And Netanyahu. And Sharon.

      OIr Iraq Bush said:
      The CIA gave us bad intelligence’

      Liar, liar, pants on fire…

      • J.B.

        Those canards are even more idiotic today than when they were originally hatched. Trolltatd.

      • American Patriot

        The Bushes are heroes for liberating people in Iraq and Kuwait from Islamist/Baathist tyranny, fool. The Castros (both Fidel and Raul) are criminals (including war criminals-remember Cuban Communist intervention in Angola and other countries, as well as the Cuban Communist takeover of Venezuela today?). As is Arafat and Abbas, as well as Assad (both Hafez and Bashar) in Syria. In fact, all of America’s enemies are criminals.

        • mikeh420

          Saddam was not Islamist, he kept the Islamists at bay. Bush liberated the Iraqi people from Secular/Baathist tyranny, only to hand them over to Pure Islamist tyranny. Should’ve left them right where they were. We would have saved a few thousand of our soldiers and a billion dollars.

  • Lanna

    Presidents HW Bush and GW Bush liberated Iraq. They won both wars with total success. Obama’s policies are changing the face of the Middle East and elsewhere. Dictators are removed and worse dictators take their places. So much for Democracy that the people of these countries want, Islam continues to destabilize those governments and bring them into an Islamic Caliphate that will lead to the march into Jerusalem. The prophet Zachariah foresaw the day when all nations would be gathered against Jerusalem to do battle. Zechariah 14: 2-3.

    • Don Turnipseed

      If by ‘liberate’ you mean leaving over 4 million Child Orphans in Iraq, the killing of over 1 million people in 10 years, the destruction of almost all social services from water to roads, to total destruction and now anarchy…then yes, Bush liberated Iraq.

      Bush 1 was responsible for killing 500,000 Children.
      Madelaine Albright (Jewess) said Shed do it again.
      Non Jews are Goyim or animals.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        You really have a problem with Jews, don’t you? Comment much on Stormfront?

      • Habbgun

        Goyim means nations by the way. A nation is a goy. That is not for your benefit but for anyone reading your comment.

        As for you:

        Bush 1 was responsible for killing 500,000 Children.
        Madelaine Albright (Jewess) said Shed do it again.
        Non Jews are Goyim or animals.

        You do realize what that kind of change in thought means. People who yell to themselves on subways have this kind of juxtaposition (that mean going from one thing to another. I’m here to help).

        Please take your meds.

      • J.B.

        Everything you posted was a ridiculous canard. Why don’t you just screech “Bush lied, people died!”

      • Gee

        Albright is a CATHOLIC not Jewish Herr Turnip

      • Drakken

        Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh your bleeding little heart for our Islamic enemies is really touching. If you love and have such sympathy and empathy for these people, please by all means move there and show them all the compassion you want to, there.

      • American Patriot

        Oh, so you supported Saddam’s attempted takeover of Kuwait? You are a supporter of Communist, Islamist and Baathist totalitarianism. And no, the “500,000 children dead” lie is nothing more than Saddam propaganda. Why don’t you denounce Saddam’s regime for gassing the Kurds to death in Northern Iraq? Oh, wait, you supported the Saddam regime in Iraq, that’s why you won’t condemn those atrocities.

  • Insecticide

    Dismemberment of Iraq is actually a good thing and should have been done 20 years ago

    • knowshistory

      dismemberment of Iraq was the best remaining option after gwbush’s folly of invading an Islamic country without the intent to kill them all. before the folly, the best policy was to let them oppress themselves without any help from us. under saddam, they were doing a very good job of oppressing themselves. when we freed them, who did they instantly start fighting against? us. they are muslims, y’all idiots. we can submit to them. we can help them conquer us. we can help them kill infidels, but we cannot free them. better to have nothing at all to do with them, including allowing them to invade our country. since Iraqis and Syrians are killing so many poor muslims, we should help them by sending them more muslims—ours.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      This is true. Winston Churchill once mused that one of the biggest mistakes of his life was taking a red pencil and drawing lines on a map. Within these lines, nations were to emerge.

      It was a bigger mistake than the Dardanelles fiasco, in the First World War. And note that I consider Churchill to be the greatest man in the 20th Century.

      However, will Iraq actually be dismembered, or will it become part of an Islamic Caliphate?

      • DonT

        Divide and Conquer.
        Used by the J E Ws for centuries.

        It was for them that Iraq was invaded. Neo CONs anyone?
        And an oil Pipeline from Kirkuk/ Mosul TO Haifa Israel.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          What’s that you say, Bill?

      • Americana

        I agree w/both of you. Dismemberment of Iraq was well on its way to becoming a reality but America stopped it in order to preserve an infeasible union. The Kurds want their homeland and, if they’re powerful enough, they’ll secure it against ISIS. I don’t believe any of these factions whose intentions are for regional autonomy will settle for being part of a larger geographic Caliphate. That is one thing that seeing European nationhood has given them, a taste for their own political and cultural autonomy. As destructive as Islam might be against European style nationhood, it also can’t withstand the drive for tribal autonomy. Caliphates also rely on producing the one Muslim Strongman who can conquer all and then keep them under his boot heel. I don’t see that happening. THANK GOD for tribalism! Autonomy and tribalism will keep this Caliphate business kicked to the curb for decades to come, for the foreseeable future as far as I can divine.

  • Realist

    The entire enterprise was poorly thought out from the beginning. Bush et al thought that by deposing Saddam the Iraqi people would welcome the USA as the Europeans once did when they were freed from Hitler. Bush, Obama et al failed to consider that the religion and tribalism were the major undercurrents kept in check by Saddam. We never should have invaded in the first place unless we were prepared to stay there for a long time, as we did in Japan and Germany. Why the way does anyone remember what was the definition of an American victory in Iraq and Afghanistan? If it is one man, one vote in Iraq, then it was a simpleminded endeavor. Supporting corrupt, weak dictators with large quantities of cash as in Afghanistan is hardly worthy of the term victory. It is time to admit that Iraq and Afghanistan are failed endeavors and a complete waste of American lives.

    • J.B.

      Germans did not Welcome Americans after Hitler was defeated, and Germany was a Christian country at the time. Iraq should have been carpet bombed the same way Germany was.

  • Demetrius Minneapolis

    Why doesn’t CNN and/or CBS/ABC/NBC/BBC place an embedded (almost wrote “inbred”!) reporter with Al Sadr’s militia and another with ISIS so I can sit back and enjoy the show? Think of the ratings you media whores!

    • Habbgun

      Isn’t a reporter for CNN and/or CBS/ABC/NBC/BBC embedded in America?

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        Yes, and that’s one of our national problems …

  • kasandra

    “[E]vents on the ground are changing dramatically and quickly….” Yes they are. And our leadership is engaging in pilpul and stalling until it’s too late to help which will allow reality to make his decision for him. This really isn’t a matter of Iraq. It’s a matter of U.S. interests. It simply is not in the U.S. national interest to have an al Qaeda state in the middle of the Middle East. It will be a base and launching pad for all sorts of actions all over the world. A competent leader would have had B-52s and B-1Bs saturation bombing their columns when out in the open between cities two days ago.

    • Americana

      That goes even more so for the REVERSE SITUATION as well, a COMPETENT IRAQI GOVERNMENT would have contacted the U.S. and asked for that kind of air support at an appropriate time. A competent American leader would have possibly made that OFFER to al Maliki and the Iraqi gov’t but no competent American President would have just gone and DONE that bombing without the agreement of the standing government, never mind the CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL from Congress for those hostilities.

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        As much as I hate to say it, the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Force is still in effect. Obama already has all the Congressional approval he needs.

        • Americana

          I didn’t know that the 2002 Authorization would apply for another separate conflict even if it’s within the same country under different circumstances. How is that possible, Wolf? Is it because we didn’t sign a formal agreement about some aspect of this? Please explain.

          Also, the Iraqis have approached us about air support but they requested they be GIVEN DRONES. I don’t believe the Iraqis requested that American troops would be the ones operating them. Which is crazy unto itself because I don’t see how the Iraqis would develop their competency rapidly enough to effectively use drones against the ISIS even if they were given them. And, if the situation is as tenuous as it seems, we’re likely not willing to risk giving the Iraqis any equipment that might ultimately fall into the wrong hands.

          • kasandra

            Face it, you don’t want to do anything about the situation. So what’s your solution to a possible jihadi state in Syria/ Iraq with a large population, large resources, a wealth of military equipment, etc. Hope for the best?

          • Americana

            Look, kasandra, it might be the popular thing to do the poll-sci ideological smack down around here but I’m not interested in doing precisely that. So, either engage w/me as someone who doesn’t think about stuff like this from a specific political party’s ideological stance or don’t engage me.

            Since when have I ever said I’m interested in “DOING
            NOTHING?” Though I’m not happy about a Muslim state of this nature in the region, it’s unlikely to have any immediately dangerous effects other than consolidating itself and then moving in Syria’s direction. As for military steps, I’d target all the main weapons caches for bombing strikes so they’re left w/whatever arms they’re carrying and what’s left in smaller unit depots. Freezing financial assets is a given. The Iranians have gotten involved and this may be what our government was waiting for. The Iranian involvement may achieve a couple of things, it likely would weaken the Iranian army and it would help w/developing more regional protectionism amongst legitimate governments.

            Our government, the executive branch, the State Department, the CIA and our Armed Forces WOULD ALL have been involved w/evaluating our present course of action in Iraq. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be feasible to achieve what we wish for from our American perspective. Yes, the President is the one on whose shoulders the decisions ultimately fall but there are many involved in our decision making viz the Middle East. I’m sure the Armed Forces is in lockdown trying to strategize.

          • kasandra

            While I think Obama is a national disaster, I’m not approaching this from a partisan matter. I’ll say it again to make sure I’m being clear. It simply is not in the U.S. – both Republican and Democrat – interest to allow a jihadist state in the middle of the Middle East, especially one that has inherited the assets of Iraq. Therefore, we should work to prevent it. This would require the use of air power, lots of it, to destroy ISIS assets and personnel. As none of has a time machine, we can’t go back to a month ago and redo our policy so what I’m describing is what should be done today – with our without (but I’m sure it would be with) Iraq’s permission. And I’m not to keen about bringing Iran into it or we may end up with an Iranian crescent from Lebanon thru Syria, into large swaths of Iraq and Iran. The only partisan aspect of my recommendation is that it means the current U.S. president can’t, as he is wont to do, keep dithering and putting conditions on doing something that puts off any action. Instead, it contemplates that the president actually act instead of navel gaze while ISIS consolidates its position.

          • Americana

            Yes, I agree, we should work to prevent an Islamist state in all or a portion of Iraq. However the Iranians are coming in on the side of the Iraqi government. Why isn’t it in our short-term interests to let the Iraqis and the Iranians take the brunt of this initial fighting and the internal political hassles that go along w/it? There’s no way the Iranians would end up w/an Iranian power crescent simply by assisting the Iraqis for X-period of time, not given their history. It would, at best, be an affiliation of convenience.

          • Drakken

            You ain’t looked at a map have you sunshine? When you go from Iran to the Med, have yourself a gander as to what nations lie in between. You certain do quite a bit of assuming and do little knowing.

          • Americana

            What nations are you worried about, Drakken? No, lemme guess. You tell me how you see this playing out and you’re not allowed to opt for your usual genocide solution right off the bat. I want to hear your strategic plan. I’ll expand on my thinking when you’ve said your piece. Obviously, no, I’m not simply ignoring the countries that lie between Iran and the Med. I’ve got a little more faith in the backstops than you do. Did you serve in the ’67 war? You’re so ?????

          • Drakken

            Very simple, shore up the Jordanians, because they are going to need it, give the Christian militias in Lebanon the aid they require, give the Kurds some neat shinny new toys like the Russians are and do some good old fashioned strategic bombing to keep things to a dull roar, and otherwise let the Sunni’s and Shiites slaughter each other to their little hearts content.
            No, I did not serve in 67, my service started in 1982(USMC)My crash course in islam began on the morning of Oct 23rd, 1983.

          • Americana

            I was teasing about the ’67 war… Just a moment of levity and cheeky rudeness in all the depressing news. I can guess your approximate age based on a few clues. Are you surprised that your strategy is basically what I suggested in one of my posts without mentioning all the peripheral countries? At least for the initial hostilities.

          • Drakken

            Sorry dear, but in todays world I have little time or patience to be PC and being short, blunt and to the point is the only thing I have time for these days. Things are a tad chaotic these days.

          • Americana

            Well, even if I do slap someone like you upside the head w/a post, it’s a straight up thing. I do see why you persist in feeling that huge numbers of Muslim deaths are needed before any final diplomatic solutions will be found. That’s not my determination of what will happen though and I’m not going to flesh that out more.

            However, there have been significant people to have come forward who might turn the tide. Look at Massoud… For him to have come out of nowhere at that point in time w/his character and his national agenda was remarkable. Individuals like him are what drive history.

          • Drakken

            Massoud was nothing more and nothing less than a jihadist himself and a brigand like the bloody rest of them and an opportunist to boot. Individuals like him are nothing more than a footnote.

          • Americana

            No, he wasn’t simply that although he did fight the Russians and some other groups. He was quite an unusual guy. He was a man that transcended his life and I’m pretty sure he would have set Afghanistan on a different course.

          • Drakken

            Thanks for the teasing little one, ;) HUNYUK! Look it up !

          • Americana

            So was ‘hunyuk meant in the Urban Dictionary sense (I can live w/that version) or the other (correct) Serbo-Croat translation? ;( (Would prefer not to live w/this translation.)

          • Bklyn Farmer

            “Did you serve in the ’67 war” suggesting or in your case accusing someone of being an Israeli is “cheeky rudeness” – maybe in your social circle.

          • Americana

            That’s for Drakken to react in a positive or negative way, Brklyn Farmer, not for you to do so. I asked in that fashion about that war because he reminded me very brusquely in another post that Israel is IN THE WAY should Iran choose to keep right on rolling. He didn’t realize that I didn’t need to get out the maps and look at which countries are to the west of Iran. I’ve got nothing to apologize for in that remark and Drakken wouldn’t have told me ‘HUNYUK’ if he didn’t fully understand my point. Whether he’s a dual-national Israeli or not is something he’s welcome to tell me, or not. It wouldn’t fundamentally change my opinion of his opinions or, for that matter, my opinion of anyone else’s opinions if they say they’re dual nationals or Israeli.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Actually this is called an open forum for a reason. The key word is “open” so you can keep that for-Drakken-eyes-only nonsense. I ask for no “apology” only made an observation that all can see.

          • Americana

            Certainly it’s an open discussion, but speaking for myself, I tend not to make remarks criticizing someone’s post when I SHOULD — on the basis of the posted responses (by Drakken, in this case) — have understood that the recipient didn’t take it as a rudeness or an affront.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Please don’t make yourself out to be the Emily Post of the internet. Until you become the site’s cencor you’ll have to put up with being called out for your rude post.

          • Americana

            I DON’T have multiple avatars. Where does that little bit of BS come from? I’ll be whatever I wanna be as far as being an Emily Post type on this site. You want to remain mired in crudolicious commentary w/lots of punkass name calling, be my guest. I’d rather have some knockdown, drag out fights w/the likes of Drakken only to have it end on a pleasant not because I acknowledge his experiences. This is entirely possible as a scenario or I wouldn’t have been given the ‘HUNYUK’ by Drakken.

          • Americana

            Oops, that should ‘NOTE’ instead of ‘not.’

          • Americana

            I am not >>>> reader! Are you kidding me???? Haven’t you seen the rude comments directed at me by reader? I thought you had your ears to the ground. Obviously not. One avatar is enough for anyone.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            I apologize for my false claim that you are using multiple avitars my screen showed your comments coming from reader after refreshing it shows you as Americana for that I apologize. All else I stand by.

          • Americana

            I would have preferred that you end that on a ‘HUNYUK’ note but, fine, I’ll settle for this clarification/realization on your part.

          • Bklyn Farmer
          • Americana

            Do you understand I wasn’t using it as a put-down now? Or do I need to explain further? The desperate straits presented by the 1967 war was something I didn’t see being repeated this time around. Drakken strongly implied that the war could veer that way. I don’t see the ingredients being present to have happen what Drakken mentioned — a full-on drive to the see and Israel being overwhelmed. The geopolitical aims are different.

            FYI — I never use Israeli citizenship as a put-down.

          • Drakken

            Hunyuk is Serbian-Croat for little – - – - .

          • Bklyn Farmer

            It’s 2:00 am here and I can’t stop laughing after reading your post, thanks.

          • Drakken

            Well my sense of humor is like my coffee, dark, bitter and murky, or is that how I like my women? Oh h*ll I forget! ;) As long as I remember my name and where I am, I’m golden.

          • Americana

            Boy, I’d better let them know that it’s something else…
            _________________________________________
            To partake in hunyuk activity. To perform silly acts in a timely fashion amongst friends.
            One time I drank beer from a keg while I stood on my hands for 75 seconds. I am a hunyuk, and that was hunyuk activity.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Enjoy you term endearment ;)

            A boorish and uncouth farmer, a lout, of foreign background.

            A farmer or homesteader who fenced open range. Somewhat ‘old-fashioned and often derogatoryf touch).”—‘Current Slang,’ Vol. V, summer, page 14>

            An immigrant (often a recent one) from central, southern, or eastern Europe (by birth or decent – often a Magyar (the principal ethnic group of Hungary) or Slav, especially an unskilled, uneducated industrial laborer with such a background—used contemptuously. Also used attributively.

            <1971 “Honyok, noun . . . One who shovels manure (derogatory, person who is lazy or our oA farmer or homesteader, usually one of central European background.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            Enjoy you term of endearment ;)

            A boorish and uncouth farmer, a lout, of foreign background.

            A farmer or homesteader who fenced open range. Somewhat ‘old-fashioned and often derogatoryf touch).”—‘Current Slang,’ Vol. V, summer, page 14>

            An immigrant (often a recent one) from central, southern, or eastern Europe (by birth or decent – often a Magyar (the principal ethnic group of Hungary) or Slav, especially an unskilled, uneducated industrial laborer with such a background—used contemptuously. Also used attributively.

            Terms of disparagement . . .hunyak . . . lummox, [etc.]”—‘American Thesaurus of Slang,’ page

            Honyak: very insignificant of low-grade people” (Michigan)—‘Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE),’ page 1162>

            One who shovels manure (derogatory, person who is lazy or our oA farmer or homesteader, usually one of central European background.

            A boorish and uncouth farmer, a lout, of foreign background.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            HUNYAK / HONYAK / HONYOCK(ER) / HONIJOKER / HUNYYACK(ER) / (sometimes capitalized):

            1) An immigrant (often a recent one) from central, southern, or eastern Europe (by birth or decent – often a Magyar (the principal ethnic group of Hungary) or Slav, especially an unskilled, uneducated industrial laborer with such a background—used contemptuously. Also used attributively.

            2) a) A farmer or homesteader, usually one of central European background. b) A boorish and uncouth farmer, a lout, of foreign background. c) A farmer or homesteader who fenced open range. Somewhat ‘old-fashioned and often derogatory’ (as of 1991) [heard in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming]

            3) Above variations along with HAWNYOCK: By extension an inexperienced or ignorant person; a hick; a yokel; a low-class person; a lazy person.

          • Americana

            Are we talking sh**? Boy, the definition didn’t read like that in the urban slang dictionary!#$!$!@ Guess I don’t want it thrown around as a term of fellowship. ;)

          • Drakken

            Well I could call you Houdich, would that be preferable? ;)

          • Americana

            That one doesn’t appear in the Urban Dictionary so you’re going to have to enlighten us. ;( Just how bad is this one?;) How many language do you speak? I’m assuming you’ve got German for sure but where’d you develop the Serbo-Croat?

          • Drakken

            Houdich is Serbo/Croat/Slovian for devil. I speak 7 and understand a few more, and that is because my Hapsburg Grandmother made it a point to make me learn them.

          • Americana

            Which term should I opt for given that we may be knocking heads for a while — hunyuk or houdich? ;) I’m hoping that you don’t shorten the houdich to ‘ho’ but given what names you’ve picked for me thus far, I’m not very hopeful that’s not coming down the pike as well! (Teasing. :0)

            Talking about knocking heads, were you freed up from the mission to Balad because the Iraqi Air Force finally got the lead out and swooped in for the rescue?

          • Drakken

            I am first generation American, Father Prussian, Mother Hapsburg Austrian. All Catholic.

          • soccermom

            I agree with Kasandra… Bomb them and do it now. W’hoo!!! We have such greater military power than these goons. What strategising needs to be done. Blast em!! Moron

          • Americana

            What exactly does that get us? Describe this as you see this playing out. Saying “Bomb them” is the beginning of the strategy, what’s your end game? You know, so we have the non-moron opinion out front and center.

          • soccermom

            Ummm. Bombing them is the beginning and end strategy. How hard is it??

          • Americana

            Let’s just ask Drakken as a military man on the ground there if that’s a reasonable beginning and end of the strategy now that they’re ensconced in major cities. I’m assuming you’re talking about bombing their cities?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Indeed, the Authorization still is in effect. If Obama wished to, he could send several divisions of troops in, along with fighters, tactical bombers … whatever he wants. I hear that he’s sending the USS George HW Bush and its associated battlegroup to the Gulf, at this moment.

            As for giving drones to the Iraqis, since American weapons tend to end up in the hands of the enemy, I’d prefer that he didn’t, as you pointed out.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            One final thing …

            The Authorization allows the President … whomever that is … to use force against nations, organizations, and persons responsible in full or in part for the 9/11 attacks. Note the following:

            Section 3, Subsection b, Item 2 of the bill required the President to “make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate
            his determination that… acting pursuant to this joint resolution is
            consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take
            the necessary actions against international terrorists
            and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
            persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
            attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

            Note that there is NOT an end-date for this authorization.

      • J.B.

        Since when has Obama Bin Laden sought Congressional approval for anything? And only a trolltard could think the Iraqis waited too long for an aerial bombardment.

        • Americana

          Aerial bombardment works best when there are CONCENTRATED FORCES that have been massed to execute a battle plan. When the optimal time to shoot the sitting ducks would have been isn’t a guess I’m willing to make. I believe the Iraqis first floated requests in March or April but they floated them indirectly. They also asked to BE GIVEN DRONES. They didn’t ask for us to assist w/U.S. TROOPS w/THEIR use of those drones. Why should we give them equipment that might ultimately fall into the hands of ISIS fighters because the Iraqis haven’t had time to develop their competency in their use?

          • kasandra

            Wrong again. They asked for drones, equipment and air support. And if you bothered looking at the photographs coming out of Iraq, there were extensive columns of ISIS vehicles right out in the open in the middle of the desert. I wouldn’t use drones exclusively in any case as their payload is much more limited than that of a strategic bomber (or even an A-10) which could have decimated these columns and set ISIS back on its heels.

          • Americana

            Did you even read my post? I said they’d asked for drones but under Iraqi control. But for the Iraqis to develop drone competency in such a short timeframe wouldn’t have been very likely so why give them drones?

            As for the “columns of vehicles and troops,” that was the recent status of ISIS movements as they made the move into Kirkuk. That wouldn’t have been the status several weeks ago though it’s likely we could have bombed encampments. We still don’t know what guidelines the Iraqi government was willing to tolerate for American involvement and those guidelines are likely what shaped our decision to engage or not engage on their behalf.

          • reader

            “We still don’t know what guidelines the Iraqi government was willing to tolerate for American involvement and those guidelines are likely what shaped our decision to engage or not engage on their behalf.”

            Do you work for the State Department? Just curious.

          • Americana

            I won’t answer that or any questions along those lines. This is how Americans ought to be thinking about these questions for their deeper strategic import instead of immediately leaping to certain conclusions. This is true for whichever side of the political spectrum they’re on.

          • reader

            I just want to know how you don’t know. Because you seem to know or don’t know a lot – depending on what the meaning of is is.

          • Americana

            Strategizing what the possibilities are is a fairly intriguing endeavor, don’t we all do that?

          • reader

            Your strategizing reeks of “community organizing”. Hence the affinity for chaos and lumpen of all stripes and colors.

          • Drakken

            You know less than nothing and spout complete utter BS, you know less than knowing and say less than nothing. Your less than bloody useless. Put your azz on a plane and go live in one of these countries before you talk out of your azz because your mouth knows better.

          • Americana

            I’ve had two sisters living in Muslim countries, one in multiple different Muslim countries. I’ve had umpteen journalists going off to Muslim countries. I’ve got friends in Israel, most of whom opt for the two-state solution but some who don’t. Just how much exposure do you think someone needs? The fact I don’t spout your genocidal stuff doesn’t mean I’m not well aware of where the lines are drawn. Nor does my belief there are moderate Muslims who are secularists who haven’t made it to the top of the political heap yet necessarily fall into the
            never-gonna-happen category. How do you explain how it is the secular Turkey came about? Care to explain how that lasted as long as it did? What about Lebanon? How did that Paris of the Mideast come about and last? How and why did Lebanon fall as it did? Care to answer that little historical conundrum? It isn’t simply that the Lebanese are bloodthirsty Muslims.

          • Drakken

            So your liberal do gooder sisters went there, you haven’t and know next to nothing other than what some kumbaya singer has told you.
            Modern Turkey came about in 1923 by our friend Attaturk and since Erdogen has taken over is going increasingly into the islamist camp.
            Lebanon fell because of those god forsaken Fakestinians that King Hussein of Jordan threw out and killed over 20,000 of them when they tried to overthrow him. My Marine barracks were blown up in 83 from Iranian and Hezbollah jihadist. What do you want to know about the Phalange, Druze, Fakestinian and Shiite Hezzbollah?
            Any other history lessons that you need, please feel free to ask. Unless and until you have lived in these god forsaken places and taste the dirt, dust and garbage of these places, you get nothing but second hand information and the bias of western liberal journalist is well know. Your belief in muslim secular forces is a goddamn pipedream. Anything else I can help you with, please feel free to ask.

          • Americana

            They didn’t go anywhere as do-gooders. They went because they’re fascinated w/international affairs. My youngest sister turned in a bunch of people for graft and received death threats. My oldest sister has been in the oil business and a professor in both the Near and Far East. They’re not chumps, Drakken, either one of them. A journalist friend went to Ghana to work in the World Health Organization after taking a Masters in Public Health and her husband is a teacher there. No one else I know who’s gone there has gone there w/a pie in the sky mindset. The only folks I know who go there w/that starry-eyed mindset are are the Christian missionaries.

            There are a lot of historical what-ifs to which no one has the answer but you’ve got to ask yourself the questions. Would the Marine barracks have been blown up if there were a Palestinian state? As for my belief that there will be a Muslim reformation coming down the pike along w/a resurgence of the type of secularism represented by Massoud and Attaturk, that’s for history to decide. In the meantime, I’m well aware we’ve got to cope w/the Muslims as they present themselves.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            If you want to see how the future Palestinian state will behave look no further than Gaza but on steroids. Would the Palestinians have attacked the Marine barracks if there had been a Palestinian state, if they thought it would hasten Israel’s destruction, then a resounding YES. The Palestinians have been offered a state in the past and declined instead wanting ALL of Israel. Palestinians and the useful Western idiots condem Israel for security measures and want an end to it, good stop trying to kill Israelis. Let the Palestinians show a goodwill gesture and free the three Israeli teenagers instead of demanding the release of terrorist.

          • Drakken

            Whether the goddamn fakestinians had a state or not is immaterial to what happened to my barracks and good friends and comrades, including one that went to high school with me. Those goddamn fakestinians deserve every bloody thing that happens to them, and it can’t happen soon enough. When you lose wars that you start, don’t come crying after the fact that you lost and want your territory back.
            Mark my words little girl, there will be no reformation of islam unless and until the west rids ourselves of it. Moussoud and Attaturk are dead and so is their secular reformation, islam is on the rebound and will attack us until we get medieval with these dark age savages.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            In 1910, 70 percent of Lebanese born were Christians, which dropped to 50 percent in 1936 and 30 percent in 1971. Now, Christians make up about 34.7 percent of Lebanese population, obviously a critical mass or lack there of was hit and so went the Paris of the Middle East along with the fleeing Christians or is this just coincidentally, not.

          • Webb

            I take that as a yes.

          • soccermom

            I love the A-10 and its amazing gun. I bet that the jihadis don’t like it too much lol!!

      • kasandra

        Uh, the Iraqi government has been asking for U.S. air support for a month. Besides, it is irrelevant whether the Iraqi government is competent. Ours certainly doesn’t appear to be. A jihadist state in the Levant is contrary to U.S. national interest and should be prevented by us in our own national interest. I don’t have any doubt a majority in Congress would agree as would any sentient person.

        • Americana

          I didn’t word that terribly clearly. Asking for the support when the situation has already reached critical mass isn’t the appropriate time for outreach of that nature. Besides, U.S. would have to be the one to make the tactical decisions not the Iraqis. The Iraqis asked to be given drones for use by Iraqi forces. They didn’t ask for military assistance w/those drones being under the control of U.S. drone operators. That would have left the U.S. facing drones should the ISIS forces overrun any Iraqi positions and the U.S. is ultimately forced to come to Iraq’s aid.

      • soccermom

        Moron

    • soccermom

      Well said.

  • sundance69

    These people are animals, have always been animals and will always be animals. Let the peace loving religion of Islam destroy them all. If they bother us I think the making of a radioactive parking lot would be in fine order. No more American bloodshed, they had their chance and blew it big time.

  • Texas Patriot

    That would be like saying a geologist who does a study of an unstable volcano is responsible when it finally erupts. The truth is that the middle east has always been a volcano on the verge of an explosion, and it is absurd to think that anyone is responsible other than the middle easterners themselves.

    • reader

      …the same could be said of Europe in the 20th century – and yet you were beating around the bushes about how heroic Obama’s grandpa was for serving under Patton – even though he (the grandpa that is) had been a commie. S0, you give absurd a bad name here, comrade.

      • Texas Patriot

        Thanks. I’ve been called many things in my life but never a Communist. The truth is that I’ve been fighting Communism, Marxism, and Nihilism since I was three years old and actively involved in the campaign of Dwight Eisenhower for President in 1952. Otherwise, although anything is possible, I have yet to see any hard evidence that Obama’s maternal grandfather was a Communist, and from my perspective, anyone who wore the uniform of a United States soldier and served under General George Patton in WWII is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

        • reader

          Yeah, you have yet to open your eyes. There are at least two researches out there that I know of detailing exactly what Obama’s upbringing is. Researches not once challenged by any scholar. How ’bout me calling you a marxist like it better? By the way, you’re bait-n-switching. The point was about Europe – “a volcano on the verge of an explosion.”

          • Texas Patriot

            reader: How ’bout me calling you a marxist like it better?

            How about an American Tribalist of the Will Rogers, Barry Goldwater, and Merle Haggard school. That’s probably much closer to the truth.

          • reader

            Yeah, Barry Goldwater supporting Obama at every turn? Really? That slick? Looks more like Saul Alynski school to me. How bout answering a direct question for once in your life?

          • Texas Patriot

            I campaigned hard for Barry Goldwater as a Young Republican in 1964, and I would campaign hard for him if he were alive today. Unfortunately, he’s not.

          • reader

            So, you’re like Whittaker Chambers – only the opposite. If Barry found out that you’re supporing a marxist Obama, I don’t think he would like it. He probably wouldn’t like you’re evading questions too.

          • Texas Patriot

            For your information, I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 or in 2012 but I do support him as the duly elected representative of the American people, even if I don’t agree with all his ideas and policies. The thing about Barry Goldwater was that he was always a gentleman and patriotic American, regardless of who happened to be President at any given point in time. Perhaps you weren’t aware that Barry Goldwater and John Kennedy were great friends, even though they represented different political parties. They even talked about renting a plane and campaigning together around the country for the 1964 campaign, in order to save the taxpayers money. Unfortunately, that never happened. If Barry Goldwater were here today, I think he would always try to defend Obama against unjust accusations and false charges, and that’s what I try to do, even as I disagree with his ideas and policies in many areas.

          • Americana

            I agree w/you again, Texas Patriot. The name calling is just shameful and so wildly off the mark.

          • reader

            Yeah, trolls from huffpo are outraged about name calling. That’s a shocker. I care so much about you’re judging me, comrade2.

          • Webb

            We have no respect for trolls. Go away and you won’t get called named.

          • Americana

            You have no respect for ‘truths,’ is that what that world was? Even if they’re eventually proven more accurate than your own.

          • reader

            Oh. How genuine. And how inspiring.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExQcrf80OSI

          • Texas Patriot

            Bush was a gym rat. Why not Obama?

          • reader

            That’s all you made out with? Boy, you’re really in love with the man.

          • Texas Patriot

            Sorry. It’s my Christian duty to love my enemies as well as my friends. ;-)

            “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

            Matthew 5:43-48

          • reader

            Hmm. I remember you flatly refusing any love toward professor Kengor. Suspiciously selective, eh?

          • Texas Patriot

            Who is Professor Kengor?

          • reader

            That’s the guy who researched Obama’s family Communist circle and shared his research with us, fortunately.

          • Texas Patriot

            I don’t know Professor Kengor, and have no reason not to wish him well. Whether his research is entitled to any credibility is another matter. Christians are taught to “test everything” and take nothing at face value regardless of the source. Nevertheless, do find it interesting that no one else has made that claim regarding Obama’s maternal grandfather. Do you have any other authority for that theory, or is it unique to Professor Kengor?

          • reader

            Yes. Atanley Kurtz did make that claim too – a well documented claim I might say. Interestingly enough, noone made any counterclaims to this effect. Are Christians taught to close their eyes and ears?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoyx-C7yGcA

          • reader

            I meant to write Stanley Kurtz.

          • Texas Patriot

            Gladys Knight is a great singer, but she is not known for her work in Christian moral theology. Do you have a link to Kurtz’s work?

          • reader
          • Texas Patriot

            Interesting. My take has always been that Obama is not nearly the ultra-Liberal that most Conservatives have always thought he was, and that he never would have been nominated by the Democratic Party if Liberals hadn’t believed what Conservatives were saying about him.

          • reader

            Obama was nominated by George Soros, old man. Are you familiar with Discover the Networks?

          • Texas Patriot

            What i want to know is where you got that charming personality. Are you more or less charming in person?

          • reader

            Depends. But – to those were doubting it here – I could be a much worse *sshole in one’s face, I guarantee it.

          • Texas Patriot

            I don’t doubt it, but you don’t need to be.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            He’s going to have to work on his pitch, though, to be favorably compared with Bush …

          • J.B.

            Nobody but an Obamaton defends Obama’s personal character. Trolltard.

        • reader

          and another thing – can’t help but wondering, how did you fight Nihilism at three years old exactly? This one’s gonna be for the books.

          • Texas Patriot

            I would watch the newsreels of the Korean War on our family television set. I remember seeing the waves of Communist Chinese soldiers throwing themselves against a hail of American machinegun fire, and I remember thinking how it was all such a tragic and inhuman loss of life for the sake of a false political ideology.

          • reader

            really? you saw waves of chinese soldiers under machine gun fire and thought how it was all such a tragic and inhuman loss of life for the sake of a false political ideology? when you were exactly 3 years old? Wow. You must have been a bionic baby. Either that or you must be a very senile old man.

          • Texas Patriot

            My parents and their siblings were staunch Republicans, and I started hearing heated political discussions about world and national events when I was still in a highchair. ;-)

          • J.B.

            I’ll bet you were already a congenital liar by the time you were in a high chair.

          • Webb

            The Texas Parrot has no alternative but to lie. He has never known the truth.

      • Americana

        I agree w/you wholeheartedly, Texas Patriot. The entire Middle East is a series of volcanic eruptions waiting to explode as the opportunity arises. The only aspect really open to discussion is the fact that by removing the volcano’s “cap,” the strong man and his family, we guaranteed we would know approximately when the explosion would occur. The only guarantee American use of force in the region can guarantee is that we pretty much can win the war on a temporary basis. Holding the peace is not like holding the peace anywhere else in the world.

        • J.B.

          More idiotic volcano metaphors. Great. Islamopithecines can and should be blockaded in their own crapholes until they slaughter each other in the millions. Without outside help, most of the survivors would starve.

        • reader

          errr. I’m certainly not what you mean by this ridiculous misnomer. In fact, it’s about as insulting as it gets.

          • Americana

            What misnomer?

        • Texas Patriot

          We have a moral right to “keep the peace” on our own territory, and that’s it. Nothing that happens outside our borders is really any of our business unless it threatens our national security or the national security of our friends and allies.

          That said, the world is an increasingly interconnected place, and we care about maintaining our own integrity and our own security, we can ill afford to keep our eyes and ears closed to what’s going on around us. Fortunately, with advanced and rapidly evolving surveillance and interdiction technologies we are getting closer and closer to the point of being able to monitor, analyze, summarize, and respond to every conversation occurring on the planet in real time.

          The difficult challenge for America going forward will be in the selection of which crises to respond to. Unfortunately, due a combination of factors including decreased national competitiveness, job and industry losses to foreign competition, and misguided roles as “global policeman” which led us into numerous hugely expensive and inconclusive conflicts around the world since the end of WWII, we are now more than $17 trillion in debt and borrowing more than $1.6 billion a day just to pay our debts as they come due. It’s obviously time for some deep moral reflection and careful reevaluation of our proper role in the world and whether we will be able to sustain it for the remainder of the 21st Century and beyond.

          • Americana

            Agreed. We fell into the global policeman role after we realized what we thought was at risk after WW II w/the consolidation of the Soviet bloc and we’ve never been able to look at any power surge since in any terms other than that kind of geographic domination.

          • Texas Patriot

            For the foreseeeable future, economic, technological, and military dominance will probably be much more important for America than geographic dominance.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Patriot, beware of praise from Bill …

      • Texas Patriot

        Buffalo Bill?

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Nope. Just plain ole anti-Semitic Bill …

          • Texas Patriot

            Does he post on this board?

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I just noticed he’s morphed into someone called “Dont” …

          • Texas Patriot

            Interesting. I’m not familiar with that poster. But I don’t post here for “praise” from anyone. It would probably be a pretty fruitless and thankless task if I did. Rather, I post here because of the opportunity to exchange views with people I respect, most notably Daniel Greenfield and Raymond Ibrahim. My experience is that I really don’t agree with anyone about everything, and I’ve never met anyone I didn’t disagree with about something. From my point of view, the value of political discussion is the opportunity it affords to refine your own views and get closer to the truth.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            He’s a flash-in-the-pan troll poster. He’s changed in screen name three times, since I first noticed him, this morning.

            Besides David Horowitz, himself, Mssrs. Greenfield and Ibrahim are my favorite authors, here.

    • J.B.

      Yes, Obama is just like a vulcanologist. Trolltard.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Patriot, you sure do get your share of attacks, don’t you? I think that some of our original communications were less than cordial!

      • Texas Patriot

        Hahaha It’s all in good fun. I don’t mind the attacks. I always learn something, and sometimes they’re even funny. Drak is my favorite. ;-)

        • Drakken

          I am so glad that I can provide the amusement. Your going to have to excuse my un PC blunt assessments, for there is no other way to be these days.

  • Kruton

    O Obama drive back the infidels with the Holy Surgical Strike!

  • ping

    “That inability is a direct consequence of Obama’s determination to completely withdraw from Iraq in December of 2011, irrespective of events on the ground and advice of military commanders. “

    More neocon historical revisionism. In fact Obama actually tried to expand America’s stay in Iraq, (violating his election promises, though it’s not that that he ever cared about those) but Maliki insisted on adhering to the original troop withdrawal plans for 2011 in the Status of Forces Agreement made under Bush. Afterwards Obama tried to paint himself as a champion of peace, but Obama propaganda means nothing to the real world. Neocons who repeat this propaganda (but reverse it by portraying Obama’s “sucess” as a bad thing) are giving the man in the Whitehouse more credit than he deserves and assuming that he is competent when we have so much evidence proving otherwise.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Do you have something against Jews, because the term “neocon” is widely-used code for anti-Semites?

      No matter what our attitude towards nation-building, once the war in Iraq was won, the United States had a moral and national security imperative to stay there, until the country was stable. Note that we still have troops in Germany and Korea.

      You and I completely agree about Obama.

      • Don Turnipseed

        Or are YOU an Anti Gentile and Anti Christian?

        Sorry, Im J E W wise, Ive read their filthy TALMUD, I know what they teach about GOYIM/Cattle ie Non J E Ws.

        I know Israel is an Apartheid State with strict racial laws and I know it is for them that we wage War-Henry Ford was spot on about them, as was Martin Luther, Jesus, Shakespeare, Joe Kennedy et al
        I liek Arabs ie Semites just fine. Khazar Ashkenazis not so much.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          You like Arabs, so much, why don’t you go live with them, Don Turnipseed, Dont, Bill?

        • Drakken

          You ate a lot of paint chips as a child didn’t you?

        • American Patriot

          Israel is not an apartheid state. Your beloved Sudan is, you Islamist monkey. Israel is a tolerant democracy, while Sudan has an Islamist totalitarian dictatorship that is guilty of genocide against that country’s native black African Christian population.

  • knowshistory

    they are muslims.. that is the only fact that means anything. after 14 centuries of oppression by the religion of peace, the Iraqis had the chance to dump islam and eradicate all trace of islam from their country. given the choice between freedom and Islamic slavery, they chose slavery. there are two lessons to be learned (again). 1. do not attempt to help muslims. leave them alone, or kill them, but do not attempt to help them. 2. whatever government muslims have, if we intervene, we can help them get something worse than they had. the one thing we can do to help muslims is to help them all leave our country and live in some lovely Islamic eden where they will be much happier.

    • mikeh420

      So true. Ever read about The Frog and The Scorpion? Either that or Genesis 16:12 is all you need to know.

  • moovova

    “Who lost Iraq?”

    Obviously, it wasn’t Obama (aka DroneDaddy).

    After all, Obama had already surrendered in Iraq…

  • moovova

    “Who lost Iraq?”

    I guess there’s always the possibility Obama is plugging his ears and covering his eyes…so he can’t hear or read the news.

    As far as the DroneDaddy is concerned, if he hasn’t heard or seen it in the news…it doesn’t exist.

  • Gee

    Odumba didn’t lose Iraq – the Shia’ and their arrogance did that.
    Iraq is doomed and millions are going to die. Iran will be a real bloodbath.
    Islam is at war with themselves

    • Drakken

      Grab a bourbon and watch the show, kinda fun watching the muslims eating themselves.

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    IS OBAMA ONCE AGAIN (WITH HIS FAILURE IN IRAQ)

    dooming Hillary’s run for the presidency?

    Click http://www.apollospeaks.com for the answer.

  • Bill

    Iraq was a Lie in the first place.
    Bush and the Neo CONs should be swinging from Trees.

    The invasion was ultimately about running an Oil Pipeline from Mosul / Kirkukto Haifa Israel as stated by Netanyahu on Reuters, it was planned decades ago.

    I think Henry Ford had something to say about corraling 50 of the worlds wealthiest Israels, thered be no wars. He was right.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      My point to “ping”, below, confirmed.

      People who use the word “Neocon” tend to be anti-Semitic. It’s code, but not well kept, anymore. Henry Ford was an anti-Semite …

      So, genius, where’s that oil pipeline. I’d like my gas to be cheaper …

      • Dont

        Youre an Anti Gentile and Anti Christian

        Anti Semite is a canard. It just means someone that tells the truth about J EWs, or someone J EWs dont like.

        Go to Hades with your smears. Cant handle the truth, resort to name calling. Its a trick you use every time.
        Doesnt work anymore, the internet is your undoing.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          And your smears indicate that you are a Naz i, Bill. Once again, go back to Stormfront, where you belong …

        • Drakken

          Pssst, shortbus, if you love those effing ragheads so much, go live there, I am sure you would be much happier living amongst your own.

      • trickyblain

        I’m far from sharing the same views as Don’t/Bill/etc, but please don’t blanketly conflate the the use of the word “neocon” with antisemitism. It was coined by Irving Kristol, an adherent, and applies to former students of Leo Strauss who distorted his teachings into the belief that the US could and should establish itself as a global benevolent hegemony. My Irish father is a recovered neocon from the early 70′s; it’s incidental that many proponents were Jewish.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          No conflation intended …

          Neoconservatives … those that still exist … call themselves, appropriately, neoconservatives. Those who started calling them “neocons” merely sought a shorter catchphrase, and because of Irving Kristol’s influence, along with his son, Bill Kristol, enemies of everything Jewish quickly started using it as anti-Semitic code.

          I’m a Christian and a German/Native-American mix, and I’m also a “recovered neoconservative”. The majority of people who chose the opportunity of the USSR’s fall to hope for a “benevolent hegemony” are not Jewish. It was our one flirtation with idealism on a global scale, and the moment is now irrevocably lost.

          Take a good look at those who throw the word “neocon” around, and ask yourself if you want to associate with them …

          • DB1954

            They’re usually Ron Paul fanatics but sometimes left-wingers (aka all Dems).

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            During the 2008 Election cycle, I cannot tell you how many times I was told that I was a “neocon” by Paul supporters, usually followed by “Go back to Israel”, and other less-repeatable things.

    • Gislef

      It was also about removing Saddam from power:

      John Kerry: “no question in my mind that Saddam Hussein has
      to be toppled one way or another,”

      Hillary Clinton: casting her vote for war authorization
      “with conviction.”

    • Americana

      I don’t believe Israel was in existence when Henry Ford was doing geopolitical theorizing. The oil pipeline could be run through all these countries under an agreement; no need for a war to ensure the pipeline.

  • Bandido

    Iraq’s fate was sealed on November 4, 2008. From that moment, a jihadist/Iranian takeover was a certainty.

  • trickyblain

    “The Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq… two years ago, this day seemed unlikely – but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament”

    – G.W. Bush, 2008, after signing the status of forces agreement that mandated complete withdrawal of US forces by December 31, 2011.

    And is the contention from Ahlert and FPM that the US should have spent untold trillions, and sacrificed countless of servicemembers, keeping a permanent occupation force in a nation that doesn’t want us there?

    • Gislef

      If they didn’t want us there, why did they sign a Security Agreement saying they wanted us there?

      • the old skeptic

        And if they wanted us and liked us, why all the casualties?

        • Gislef

          Because there were a minority that didn’t.

          Now, to repeat my question…

  • mcbee555

    There are 200 American contractors at an Iraqi A.F. base, their job has been to prepare the base for a transfer of F-16′s to the Iraqi A,F. That base is now under siege by Al Qaeda elements running wild in Iraq. They need to be evacuated, they indicate that Al Qaeda will break through, the Americans are greatly outnumbered, but for now they’re able to hold them off. The work is supposedly being done for The Pentagon.
    Private charter airliners can get them out, but private planes would still need air cover to safely land, on-load, and take-off. The word is that U.S. combat air forces have been ordered to stand-down. See WND.com for the whole report, today’s date, 6/213/14.

    • Drakken

      Ballad airbase is now surrounded by the ISIS and the American Govt doesn’t have a clue as to how to get them out, so they have been ordered to fight their way out anyway they can and get to the green zone. The aircraft at the airbase are now useless. Somehow the ISIS got themselves some nice anti-aircraft missiles, I wonder were those came from, thanks Obummer.

      • mcbee555

        Another screw-up by the B.S. fundraiser/playboy! Some deal that made about leaving Iraq! They’re sitting in Washington, telling these guys to “fight their way out!” I wonder what the Americans at Benghazi were really told, no one lived to talk about that.

        • Drakken

          The guys in Ballad are waiting for fellow contractors to come from the Green zone, and will take anything begged, borrowed or stolen from the Hajis that is armored. If anyone will get the job done, they will.

          • mcbee555

            Thanks Drakken, I hope they can pull it off. This problem begs the question of wth is the Iraqi military. They must have some kind of aircraft to hit ISIS…some kind of low-flying types that are armed /bombed up to suppress ground troops. This air base deal is for the Iraqi military, I suppose as an Obama parting gift.
            I’m surprised at the impotence of an Iraqi military that supposedly has received some training from U.S instructors.

          • Drakken

            Like surfing, haji don’t fly either.

    • L.S.

      Thanks for the WND.com reference. I love to check them out for accurate up-to-date reporting on many issues.
      Several good websites regarding the threat of Islam are JihadWatch.org and AtlasShrugs.com.

      • mcbee555

        Actually, I came to discover that the article appeared first in “Front Page Mag,” which is another worthy of being on the good website list. I must have missed it, but have been checking the old lamestream media and either I missed it or they haven’t covered it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Al Jazeera carried it before MSNBC!

  • Bklyn Farmer

    It may have been difficult but Obama finally did it snatching defeat from the hands of victory. If only he could rescue Iraq as quickly as his trolls are trying to rescue him. Hopefully it won’t escalate to executive use of a hashtag (#).

  • Drakken

    Amen!

  • Atikva

    “who lost Iraq?” What a superfluous question!

    We have lost Iraq and Afghanistan 6 years ago, or rather: those among the muslims who would have liked to enter at last the XXI century and enjoy a modicum of freedom and security have lost everything. Their hopes, their human rights are gone, all that’s left for them is another version of the killing fields. As it was for the peoples of North Korea, Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia. They can thank the Jane Fondas of this age.

    As for we Americans, we have lost the lives of our best sons and daughters, these soldiers whom a despicable government sent there to make sure our enemies would win. Not to mention the billions of taxpayers money deliberately thrown out of the window.

  • UCSPanther

    Regardless of what happened years ago, Saddam Hussein would not have stayed in power forever, and eventually his family’s rule would have fizzled, and this same scenario would be playing out.

    Balkanization will be the fate of many Arab and other Middle Eastern/North African nations.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 aemoreira81

    My answer would be: Iraq. Where this was lost—at the attempt to nation-build. Iraq is not a country capable of sustaining a republican form of government. This was going to happen sooner or later, but as a matter of when and not if.

    @gislef:disqus – because they are master deceivers.

  • axl colt

    Many still don’t get it here. Bush invaded a sovereign nation and turned it’s people who had nothing to do with world terrorism into a raging insurgency at the nationalistic, sectarian and international level now. Don’t ever call Iraqis savages. Bush/Cheney were the foaming at the mouth savages that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. No Western backed ‘strongman’ could have controlled Iraq when everybody in the world knows except ignorant America, that Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites are the fiercest people in the Middle East.

    They defeated the U.S military and was the unofficial reason the U.S pulled out. Paying the insurgents not to attack you and hiding in parking lots telling Iraqi children to inform insurgents not to attack is not called winning. The official reason was the failure of the SOFA agreement. All the preachy, know it all’s who say the U.S should have stayed in Iraq know nothing about the insurgency since 2003, are too young, never lived in the Middle East or are brainwashed as usual with the whole ‘Iraqis are savages and terrorists’. Obama did what any president would have done. The U.S was beaten, servicemen were done and tired of the carnage, Iraq was fully destroyed, insurgents on the U.S payroll would start all over once the money ran out. Nobody here can name an Iraqi terrorist who hijacked planes, blew up a marathon or attacked cities in the West and Europe etc. Nope, that’s the job of Pakistanis, Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis who smile at Americans and curse them when they turn.

    And what will never be forgotten by Iraq and the world witnesing – the Abu Ghraib prison scandal – American freedom and democracy through torture and brutality, the surefire anger and rise of the iraqi insurgency and the reason tens of thousands of American servicemen are dead.

    • the old skeptic

      When I read Tom Ricks’ Fiasco, I must have muttered WTF fifty times. It seems we made every effort to secure catastrophe and succeeded brilliantly.

    • American Patriot

      Who is calling innocent civilians savages? Saddam’s insurgents are savages because that regime was savage itself. It invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait) in its first fifteen years in power. Saddam’s dictatorship also gassed the Kurds in what almost was one of the most savage acts of ethnic cleansing in modern history. And contrary to what you falsely claim, Saddam’s Iraq certainly did had ties to Islamic terrorists, including Al-Qaeda. Check this link for the truth that Saddam-terrorism connection deniers are apparently allergic to: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=24

      • axl

        Saddam’s insurgents were his people, either ex-military or civilians that joined the resistance. The U.S funded Saddam to fight the Iranians, yes those same Iranians that Israel now wants to bomb trying it’s level best to convince the Americans to join in. And lets not forget about the Iran-Contra affair, the embassy sieges, American civilians taken hostage, shooting down of airliners and lots of other issues in the Eighties. As for Kuwait, here’s a little secret that not many know about. Kuwait is the most deceptive country to the U.S. When the Iraq-Iran conflict was going on, Kuwaiti men would sneak into Iraq and ‘mess around’ with Iraqi women whose men were fighting on the front-lines plus all the oil they stole from Iraq. I remember this being told to us when we lived in the ME by a Muslim woman. Iraqi men would return years later to find children they never sired. And by the way, 95 percent of Kuwaitis hate the U.S, a so-called ally that funds Wahhabi terrorism. There were many other reasons for his keeping Kuwait in check. My uncle worked in Basra and other ME places in those times and he was surprised at how how much better the Iraqis in many aspects as compared to the Kuwaitis, Saudis, Pakistanis who were working there and even the Emiratis. Everyone knows Saddam despised Al-Qaeda and refused Osama’s offer for Mujahideen fighters to participate in GW 1. As for the Kurds, why he gassed them is beyond me but it was American supplied chemical weapons as that the world knows. He kept Iraq tight and secular, even if he had evil sons.

        Can you name an Iraqi terrorist that threatened to fly planes into American towers? Can you recall Iraqi terrorism around the world before 2003 funded or planned in Iraq? Were Iraqi people chanting death to America/Israel slogans? That would be the job of the Pakistanis your ally who you armed and funded who harbored Osama, extremist Iranians now threatening Israel, Saudi/Kuwait funds to radicals etc etc etc.

        I lived in the ME during Gulf War 1.

        • American Patriot

          More propaganda coming from an ignorant anti-American. First of all, the US send some supplies to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War because 1. Islamist Iran actually invaded the American embassy and held 52 hostages for 444 days during the so-called Islamic Revolution and 2. Islamist Iran was being supplied by the Soviet Union, which bordered Iran at that time. Second, Kuwaitis overwhelmingly welcomed the American liberation in the Gulf War. The whole false claim about Kuwait supposedly “stealing” Iraqi oil and Kuwaiti men supposedly “messing around” with Iraqi women is nothing but Saddam propaganda, just like the BS about Saddam not having any connections to Al-Qaeda or other Islamist terror groups. Which brings me to my next point. You obviously didn’t read the link I posted. The link I provided above goes to a section on Discover the Networks discussing the Iraq War. In the subsection about the Saddam-terrorism connection, Discover the Networks provides links to articles providing strong evidence that shows that Saddam’s dictatorship had connections to Al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups. Not only that, but Saddam was also the world’s only head of state to openly praise the 9/11 attacks in its immediate aftermath. That alone was a strong indication that the Saddam dictatorship in Iraq was affiliated with Islamist terror groups. Quit defending the indefensible.

    • Drakken

      Abu Grabass was nothing more than what college idiots do when hazing themselves, and the US didn’t lose there. That idiot Patreus the manager’s hearts ad minds strategy was a clusterfu** and the ridiculous ROE is what slowed down the process.
      I am on my 3rd decade in the muslim world you dumbazz and they are bloody savages, the lot of them. Only an idiot libtard would have wrote the stupidity above or a muslim. Get bent haji lover.

      • axl colt

        I’m a Christian.

        By the way you write and spell, can clearly see your substance.

        Cursing and swearing doesn’t make you great or heard on a debate. It proves how immature and ignorant you are. There’s not a single comment here in favor or against the Iraq invasion that sounds like yours. You need to grow up for somebody in their ’3rd decade’.

        • Drakken

          Your going to have to excuse my bluntness and un PC ways of doing things. I deal with these savages every day and have little time or patience for someone such as yourself who knows nothing and has never been in these areas. Iraq when invaded and conquered, should have been turned over to his Generals and for us to leave with a few bases in our control. That should have been it. But westerners with no clue as to how these savages operate, thought you could bring these people democracy, what a bloody farce. Instead of nation building, we should get back to the time honored concept of nation destroying and calling it a day.

  • the old skeptic

    Wow, there’s a surprise. Frontpage‘s antiseptic analysis concluded the world’s problems are the fault of non-conservatives. Who could have seen that coming?

    • Americana

      Isn’t it absurd? Further analysis is needed.

  • mackykam

    Dems: great at losing things. China; Vietnam; Iran, Iraq….next up: Taiwan.

  • Danny

    Dennis Prager has remarked (and I think his analysis is excellent), that one could have opposed the war in Iraq at the beginning, but once we are there we have to stay there, otherwise there will be a bloodbath.

    It’s not like his prediction was a tough call. Now America is retreating, both physically and morally. The fact is that although the Left in general and the Democrats in particular like to think of themselves as the party that cares about people, it’s actually only us knuckle dragging conservatives that do. Why is this? Could it have something to do with the fact that conservatives are overwhelmingly observant Christians and Jews and essential to the Left is godlessness? I bet that’s a big part of it. We don’t want to leave Iraq and Afghanistan so they can become powder kegs.

    But you know, in 5, 10 years when there is no one left to murder in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Left will turn around and blame us for having gone there in the first place. These people are shameless.

    • soccermom

      Well said

    • the old skeptic

      But you know, in 5, 10 years when there is no one left to murder in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Left will turn around and blame us for having gone there in the first place. These people are shameless.

      Let us get this straight. The unraveling catastrophe in Iraq is the fault of shameless Democrats, not at all the fault of interventionist Neo-Cons? And it is their fault because of their “godlessness”, while conservatives remain blameless because they are “overwhelmingly observant Christians and Jews”?

      Well, if simplemindedness were the glue of conclusive arguments, yours would be unassailable.

  • Walter Sieruk

    In Iraq, the militant forces of ISIS base their violence and killing on the jihadism that is taught in the Quran. As ,for example, Sura 2:216. 9:111,112. 47:4. Therefore to better understand the Quranb it’s vert important to know that way before Muhammad came upon the world tha tway back in the first century AD the Christian church had the gospel of Christ, First Corinthians 15:1-8. In contrast what Muhammad gave the world was the Quran which is,inreality, another gospel. Muhammad even claimed,at times, to get some of the information through an angle that eventually went into the composition of the Quran [another gospel] To such a thing as this the Bible warns “Though we ,or an angel from heaven,preach any other gospel unto you let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than ye have recived, let him be accursed.” Galations 1:8,9. Furthermore Jesus did predict and warn of the coming of such men as Muhammad. For Jesus taught “Beware of false prophets ,which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but imwardly they are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7:15. The Bible further warns in First John 4:1 that “many false prophets are gone out into the world.” [KJV]
    To find out more there is the Christian internet site answering-islam.org

  • Justin

    Shiites and Sunnies have been fighting each other for 1300 years, so what was staying in Iraq and spreading freedom dust 5 more years or 100 more years going to do?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Obliterating OBL and AQ in retaliation for 9/11 is one thing and obliterating Saddam Hussein because he represents an existential threat is another thing, but occupying Muslim countries to attempt to democratize them and lift them up is not only a fool’s errand, it’s incredibly counterproductive because it amounts to lifting up our eternal mortal enemies.

    As a matter of fact, the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam (the only kind) is the subjugation of all infidels and all religions into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme.

    Indeed, the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were both preordained to fail even before the occupations ever began because they were both incredibly fantasy based. What is taking place today in Iraq is the inevitable, as the long delayed reaction to the vacuum created via the removal of Saddam Hussein is in the process of finally being filled.

    If we have any luck, that filling in process will last for decades. Meanwhile, the more Muslims kill each other in Iraq in the process, the better off we in the infidel world will be.

    Moreover, if our politicians weren’t still completely incompetent, they would ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP, since it is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest, and which should have been the first thing we did immediately following the 9/11 violent jihad attacks, as zero Muslims living in America means there will be zero jihad in America.

    Of course, we blew trillions of dollars and got our best and brightest killed and maimed for exactly nothing, but that’s the fault of those same politicians that not only currently allow mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage that in essence is non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, but who are also in the process of destroying this country. Indeed, those loons reside on both sides of the political aisles.

    • Olderthanyou

      Well said; there’s about as much difference between the typical Democrat and the typical Republican as there is between a red-head and brunette h00ker.

  • Buffalo Springfield

    When are Iraq’s problems going to be Iraq’s problems to solve? We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it ends. The Vietnam War was the South Vietnamese’s War to win or lose. Like the Iraqi Military, they chose to run and hide rather than stand and fight. Those people that argue that we should go back into Iraq “to win”, should we not go back into Vietnam “and win”? That is still a communist nation, last I checked? Should we invade Iran and North Korea (who were on Bush’s list of the “Axis of Evil”? Should we invade Russia over the Ukraine? Should we invade China because they are all Communists? Let’s add Syria, Libya and Cuba to the list. The list is in no way complete.

    Now, how are we going to pay for all these wars? We can’t afford to take care of the vets from the previous wars. Will all of you in favor of all of these wars be in favor of raising taxes to pay for these wars?

    And who’s going to fight all of these wars? The All-Volunteer Force who were already burned out from multiple deployments? How about everyone who is in favor of “winning Iraq” (and these other wars that McCain is in favor of waging), have all of your draft age family members, sons, daughters, grandchildren, nephews, nieces, cousins, friends, acquaintances go and enlist right now to fight these wars. Make sure to include Barbara and Jenna Bush.

    George H.W. Bush had the wisdom to leave Saddam Hussein in power at the end of the Gulf War. Too bad “W” didn’t inherit his father’s wisdom. The Iraq War was lost the day Bush and Cheney conceived to invade it (under false pretenses, no less). There was no way that it was going to end any other way no matter who was President. Same with Vietnam.

    • American Patriot

      If Russia were to be invaded, it should be invaded in order to oust Putin and the rest of the neo-Communists from power. Russia needs to be govern by a Yeltsin-like, pro-Western government that would support America and Britain in any international conflict. Yeltsin should have banned the neo-Communists from serving in the Russian government, knowing that one day, Putin and his cronies were going to be a huge problem on the world stage, since the neo-Communists in the United Russia Party (the modern-day Communist Party of the Soviet Union) are possessed with hate and vengeance instead of compromise and reconciliation. What the neo-Communists should do is accept the fact that their side lost the Cold War, they were wrong and that they should make good relations with the West and embrace Western-style democracy. But, of course, the neo-Communists won’t do that.

    • Gislef

      McCain did fight, as I recall. I’m not clear why his family members have to be forced to fight if they don’t agree with him.
      By the same token, if someone wants to improve the poor, have all of your family members: sons, daughters, grandchildren, nephews, nieces, cousins, friends, acquaintances go and donate money. Make sure to include Malia and Marian.

  • Dyer’s Eve

    I ain’t no fan of Saddam, but… better the devil you know? Yes? Too late now.

  • http://www.apollospeaks.com/ ApolloSpeaks

    WHAT IS THE GREATEST OBAMA SCANDAL OF THEM ALL?

    The loss of Iraq to al-Qaida by Obama joining Iran in backing Shia extremist Maliki and killing political reform.

    Click http://www.apollospeaks.com for the article.

  • Libslayer

    When Obama was first elected, I knew he would abandon (lose) both Iraq and Afghanistan. One down; one to go.
    The greatest threat to world peace: Barack Insane Obama.

  • mikeh420

    Telling the savages exactly when we were leaving Iraq was probably ONE OF the stupidest things Preezy has done so far. But Saddam knew just how to keep his people in line. with guns to their heads, so Bush getting rid of Saddam created a power vacuum, calling in all the local savages.

  • marQc

    Many of the comments on this article are missing the point of the Iraq
    operation entirely. From the perspective of military strategy, it was a
    masterstroke. The U.S. turned Iraq into a “honey pot”. Instead of
    chasing Al Qaeda and assorted Jihadis all over the Middle East, it had the effect of bringing them to the Americans. They were essentially lured into a trap where they got chewed up by the superior tactics, training and technology of the American Military. It was not without its costs for sure. The Iraqis paid a terrible price for this as their country became a battlefield but it’s doubtful it could have been done any other way since other options would have been marginal in their effectiveness and too high cost-both from the political and
    monetary point of view. The other advantage is that it now contained Iran on two fronts Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the west.
    The strategic advantage of a continuing political, military and economic
    presence in Iraq given the geopolitical developments in the Middle East
    today would have been incalculable but the current Administration has
    squandered it away. The nation-building argument for the operation was
    always secondary. It would have been nice to have but not necessarily
    the primary goal.

  • tickletik

    You folks are being hysterical. After we took over Japan and Germany, we did not stay there for 10 years and move out. We set our bases there and made it very clear there would be no invading and no civil war.

    Those of you saying we should have moved in and then left, well, left to do what? Saddamn wanted WMDs, invading and then letting him go would only strengthen him. That means taking him out, and leaving the Baathist government in place would be the same as taking out Moscow and leaving the communists in place. So we took them out to.

    Now the region is at best chaotic, and we didn’t want to set up a dictator, which left us with one option. Set up a democracy and make the damn thing work. The only other alternative was to let the local generals fight it out in a civil war, and let me tell you people something that would have been Syria only magnified by a hundred on top of the worlds oil fields.

    The problem is that we are a bunch of children. We think we can press a little button and poof! Everything will be better. These things take a LOT OF TIME.

  • RaptureForums

    The “imposter-in-chief” is the one who lost Iraq. What an idiot he is.

    http://www.raptureforums.com

  • verneoz

    Just like in the Viet Nam war, the American people and the leftists that populate every post in the culture and education, are the true losers of the Iraq war. Unfortunately, neither of these 2 wars were “declared” wars. In a declared war, you can be brought up on charges for giving aid and comfort to the enemy…and possibly executed for it. The Democrats in Congress did exactly that in 2004 and beyond, after they voted for the invasion of Iraq. What spineless garbage they are.

  • Arty Cohn

    (Obama’s foolish policies are only the last step in America’s loss of what our brave soldiers fought for. It was Paul Bremer’s poor functioning that allowed Maliiki to claim the leadership after an election in which the pro-american and much more effective, Allawi, won the most votes. Also sharing responsibility must be Sec. of State, Powell, who appointed him. Also Security chair, Rice and President Bush who allowed Bremer to do his mischief.

  • Texas Patriot

    Great analysis.