Smart Diplomacy™

Al Qaeda overruns Tikrit, 3rd Iraqi city in as many days. Hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from banks with which to fund operations, mass beheadings and now, a seamless war zone between Syria and Iraq. Next up, the northern oil fields. Obama’s “diplomatic surge”, which he claimed would amply replace the hated Bush’s military surge, turns out to have been no more than a policy of cut and run.

That might have been the eventual outcome anyway, since America grew tired of the war, but for the parents and wives who lost loved ones, the millions who fought and the thousands who were maimed, it has all turned out for naught.


Filed under Uncategorized

26 responses to “Smart Diplomacy™

  1. TheWizard

    I thought we were going to have permanent bases there. I was never against the war, but without permanent bases I don’t see the point in ever going there to begin with.

    Germany and Japan are prosperous for a reason. We never left.

  2. Demmerkrat Patriot

    The “Iraq War” that was fought based on outright and admitted lies. The US should never have been there to begin with. With Germany and Japan, we fought an enemy who made direct threats against the US. Please show me where Iraq declared war against the US or made direct threats.

    The countries of the middle east have been fighting for hundreds of years. Why would any action the US took change that?

    The US sacrificed more than 6,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. For what exactly again?

    • Anonymous

      We are now witnessing the revenge of liberal policy wonks in US foreign policy, around the globe. Can anyone but the most deaf/dumb/blind democrats be impressed?

    • Mazama

      Yep, Demmerkrat Patriot, it was onlu Bush who “lied” about Saddam’s WMDs. That’s how you remember it, right?

      “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

      “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

      “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

      “I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

      “Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

      • Inagua

        Mazama – Are you defending the the Iraq War? Or are you merely saying that others shared two of Bush’s three stated justifications — WMDs, ties to terrorists, and violated UN resolutions?

        • Anon

          Inagua: It’s well documented here that you are no fan of Bush, but at what point do you stop and think, okay, what Bush did might have been wrong in hindsight, but the country was frenzied after 9-11 and wanted blood. It is ludicrous to think Bush would have taken the Obama approach and let the 9-11 terrorist act stand without some military reaction. Obama and Bush are as different as two presidents can be. That’s not a bad thing but now it’s Obama’s turn to decide if he lets Iraq fall back into the hands of the enemy or we go in and bomb the hell out of some regions to “decimate the core Al Qaeda”. Oh wait, Obama has already done that. (/snark)

        • Inagua

          Anon – You assert that the alternative to invading Iraq was “let the 9-11 terrorist act stand without some military reaction.”

          There were many the alternatives to invading Iraq, and the best would have been a large scale US-only punitive raid on Afghanistan designed to capture or kill Osama, Mullah Omar, and as many of their associates as quickly as possible.

          Invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 was an act of hubris, folly and futility that cost America over 5,000 dead, over 30,000 wounded, wasted $1 trillion, and made Iraq today an even bigger hellhole than it was under Saddam Hussein.

          Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was one of the worst decisions ever made by an American president.

    • Publius

      Funny how the Democrats never seem to talk about the Afghanistan boondoggle, the “just war” according to BHO. We had the better shot at stabilizing Iraq, but POTUS did not want to put any effort into getting a status of force agreement with the Iraqis. 43 made a lot of mistakes but the surge that was opposed by just about everyone brought stability and a chance to hold onto the gains. BHO is too important, smart and bored to get involved with trifling issues like this.

      Here is a piece form the liberal NY Times, presumably you will take the time to read it since it tends to suit your sensibilities.

  3. And no one will hold O and his administration responsible for not leaving a force behind.

    • Riverside Dog Walker

      Would you send your son/daughter to be part of said force of which you approve? It is easy when you approve of these not well thought out actions when they involve other people’s children. If there was a draft in this country, we would have a much less bellicose foreign policy.

      • My father, US Army, pre-war, Navy, WWII, and quite conservative, opposed the Viet Nam war because he didn’t want his sons, or anyone else’s son, being sent off to a war we had no intention of winning. Had he been alive in 2003, I suspect he’d have opposed the invasion of Iraq for the same reason. That’s not to take anything away from the brave men and women who served there, but the leadership, starting with Bush and continuing with Obama, betrayed them.

        • Riverslide

          I don’t know if “betrayed” is the right word. The problem is we first elected a moron, and then we elected a cynical political schemer.

      • towny

        There will be no draft as long as this country is over-run with illegal aliens.

    • Anonymous

      Are you willing to support a tax increase to maintain a military presence (without cutting military pay/benefits)?

      • TheWizard

        Tax cuts and outright elimination of the capital gains tax will create even more revenue. That would cover it.

        Eventually we, or someone, is going to have to do it again. People seem to think Iraq was George Bush’s lark. I disagree with that, and we’ve bungled a golden opportunity to keep the Middle East under some semblence of control.

  4. Libertarian Advocate

    As UBL accurately predicted it would

  5. Anon

    URGENT: Find, read, post here in its entirety, today’s WSJ opinion piece by David Henniger (sp?). Scathing commentary on Obama’s foreign policy. It’s expertly worded, and get this, the gang at Morning Joe all nodded their heads in AGREEMENT.

  6. Anonymous

    Barry O: weak and clueless abroad; dictatorial asshole at home; liar everywhere.

    • Anon22

      Yep. True to the O admin philosophy that hashtags offer better solutions than policy…..(satire, but pretty close to truth)

      @davidjacksmith: BREAKING: State Dept issues harshest hashtag yet #IraqDudesStopItNow

  7. towny

    Lol. I fell out of my chair laughing, whilst reading these comments.

    The apostate war has been a policy option for 100 years. Do you really believe removing Saddam, Gaddafi, Mubarek, Taliban-OBL, Musharef, and others was to bring stability to the region? Pass the popcorn and watch WWIII unfold.

  8. Pal Joey

    At least Biden got it right about Iraq’s future. 100% right, if you believe in fairies and unicorns.

    • Riverslide

      That’s beautiful. Thanks for posting. Joe Biden went to Iraq 17 times. Maybe if he kept up the pace of visits there — and took Larry King with him — things would be turning out more as he envisioned.

  9. Anonymous

    The solution to the Middle East is simple: move Barry and all the other obstructionists out of the way so we can develop our energy resources here. If we aren’t dependent on that region, then what happens there won’t be of much concern. Plus, we won’t be funding terrorists with our money. The Middle East will always be a cesspool full of barbarians. Nothing much has changed there even though it’s 2014. For anyone that disagrees with this point, just buy a ticket to Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan and report back (if you can make it home without getting your head chopped off simply for being an American). There is only one thing that galvanizes them: an occupying force of Americans to kill. We have the technology with drones and airstrikes to take care of problems from a distance. We should never attempt to occupy anything in that region. It’s simply a waste of American blood.