Iraq Mess Due to Obama's Policies
Jul 5, 2014 01:05:05 #
Iraq Mess Due to Obama's Policies
Monday, 16 Jun 2014 Article By Walid Phares
In his remarks about the invasion of Mosul, Tikrit and most of the Sunni triangle of Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq and Shaam (ISIS or Daesh), President Obama defined his administrations policies toward the ongoing descent of Mesopotamia into full-fledged civil war.
He underscored that Washington would not intervene on any side of an internal conflict because, he argued, the U.S. has already spent enough blood and treasure to give Iraq a chance. At the same time, he asserted that his administration wants to stand by Iraqis as they fight terrorism.
Such an articulation of policy sounds more like a political speech of a presidential election campaign during which one can include a list of contradicting arguments displayed in bright language: a shining abstract with no clear strategy.
The Obama approach to Iraq is one directly linked to U.S. domestic politics: There should be no mistake in U.S. policy in the Middle East that could exact a political price in the midterm elections or even, perhaps, in the 2016 race.
The priority in Washington seems to be less about the actual reality on the ground in Iraq, and more focused on the impact the next majority in Congress could have on the last two years of this current administration.
It seems that the Obama administration is attempting to recover from too many traumas to dive into a conflict that could enflame the whole region for many years to come. After the Benghazi scandal, after the wrong partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, after the release of the Taliban cabinet from Guantanamo, after the shaky deal with the Iranian regime, and after the failure to save Syria, the administration is now trying to flee any commitment to or on Iraq.
No matter what the administration does, it fears it will again find itself in trouble in that part of the Middle East.
ISIS, a more efficient and lethal mutation of al-Qaida, has seized most of the Sunni areas in Iraq in addition to the Sunni territory it has already captured in Syria. These two adjacent emirates will form the core of a caliphate with thousands of suicide bombers ready to blast their local enemies and those overseas.
The confident statements by the Obama campaign that al-Qaida is now on the run after the elimination of Osama Bin Laden have been shattered with the rise of the most formidable Jihadi state to date under a younger and harsher version of Osama al Baghdadi, the infamous commander of ISIS.
These new Jihadists are marching to Baghdad, referred to by the commander as the last capital of the Abbasids, and from there he promises to march in all directions in order to erect the greater Caliphate: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and beyond. These campaigns may not actually seize all these countries, but terror is certain to reign across the region.
This is one catastrophe the administration was unable to predict or avoid, but there is another catastrophe generated by the former now about to occur. The Ayatollahs are intervening in Iran, and military divisions are moving to confront the Sunni Jihadists on Mesopotamian territory. As I have been predicting (in print) since 2009, Irans geopolitical corridor from Tehran to Beirut will be defended by the Islamic Republic of Iran at all costs.
The Obama Administration has facilitated Irans expansion in the region by eliminating the Iraqi-based Iranian resistance, by abandoning the Green Revolution and allowing it to be crushed, and by cutting the illogical deal with Tehrans regime last year that included transferring cash to the Mullahs. All these inexcusable strategic mistakes allowed Irans forces to thrust into Iraq and Syria, moving entire divisions into the Shia zones of Iraq and drawing closer to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The Obama administration and its political allies in academia and the media often enjoy attributing the root of any Iraq catastrophe to the Bush administration. This perception cannot be farther from reality. The previous administration fought al-Qaida, partnered with Sunni and Shia moderates, and empowered the Kurds. It backed Iranian opposition based in Iraq and inside Iran.
The Bush administration confronted the Ayatollahs and forced Assad out of Lebanon. If anything, the previous administration was failed by parts of its own bureaucracy which became part of the Obama administration and (starting in 2006) by a majority in Congress who until 2010 disrupted the U.S. campaign against the Jihadists and the Iranian regime.
Geopolitically, the Obama administration unilaterally ended its war on the Jihadists while killing bin Laden as a consolation prize. In addition, it offered Iraq to the Ayatollahs when it abruptly withdrew from the country and left it in the hands of pro-Iranians, frustrating the Sunni moderates.
The current administration left Syria to the radicals and Assad and abandoned Lebanon to Hezbollah. Hence, from a strategic analysis perspective, Obama can blame only itself for the Daesh blitzkrieg in Iraqs Sunni triangle and for the forthcoming Iranian invasion.
Is there any way to get the region out of this mess? Any such solution would require going back to the genesis and executing a massive change in U.S. foreign policy a reality we may only see after the midterm elections or, more likely, after 2016.
Walid Phares - Biography
Professor Walid Phares serves as an adviser to the anti-terrorism caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives and is a co-secretary general of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism, a Euro-American caucus, since 2009.
Dr. Phares briefs Congress, the European parliament, and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security and Middle East conflict. He consults with and lectures to several national security and defense agencies as well as to counterterrorism advisory boards in North America and Europe.
He has served on the advisory board of the Task Force on Future Terrorism of the Department of Homeland Security in 2006-2007 as well as on the Advisory Task force on Nuclear Terrorism in 2007.
He has taught global strategies at the National Defense University since 2006. He was a professor of Middle East Studies and Comparative Politics at Florida Atlantic University from 1993-2004.
He has published several books in English, Arabic, and French including the latest three post-9/11 volumes: "Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West"; "The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy"; and "The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad."
His most recent timely book is "The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the East," which has projected the uprisings in the region before they occur.
Phares is the Fox News Channel Middle East and Terrorism Expert. He has served as NBC Terrorism Analyst until 2006. He appears on international and Arab media.
Comments;
As usual, the minute the libs read this they will all become "world class" middle east "experts", and they will all be calling Walid Phares the usual libturd names, and everything will still be "all George Bush's fault"! When I stop to think about it, the libs remind me a lot of mynah birds; (they "talk" constantly, but they have no idea what they're talking about; ), so they're not really "talking" at all.....they're just "making noise" that sounds like talking.
Monday, 16 Jun 2014 Article By Walid Phares
In his remarks about the invasion of Mosul, Tikrit and most of the Sunni triangle of Iraq by the Islamic State of Iraq and Shaam (ISIS or Daesh), President Obama defined his administrations policies toward the ongoing descent of Mesopotamia into full-fledged civil war.
He underscored that Washington would not intervene on any side of an internal conflict because, he argued, the U.S. has already spent enough blood and treasure to give Iraq a chance. At the same time, he asserted that his administration wants to stand by Iraqis as they fight terrorism.
Such an articulation of policy sounds more like a political speech of a presidential election campaign during which one can include a list of contradicting arguments displayed in bright language: a shining abstract with no clear strategy.
The Obama approach to Iraq is one directly linked to U.S. domestic politics: There should be no mistake in U.S. policy in the Middle East that could exact a political price in the midterm elections or even, perhaps, in the 2016 race.
The priority in Washington seems to be less about the actual reality on the ground in Iraq, and more focused on the impact the next majority in Congress could have on the last two years of this current administration.
It seems that the Obama administration is attempting to recover from too many traumas to dive into a conflict that could enflame the whole region for many years to come. After the Benghazi scandal, after the wrong partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, after the release of the Taliban cabinet from Guantanamo, after the shaky deal with the Iranian regime, and after the failure to save Syria, the administration is now trying to flee any commitment to or on Iraq.
No matter what the administration does, it fears it will again find itself in trouble in that part of the Middle East.
ISIS, a more efficient and lethal mutation of al-Qaida, has seized most of the Sunni areas in Iraq in addition to the Sunni territory it has already captured in Syria. These two adjacent emirates will form the core of a caliphate with thousands of suicide bombers ready to blast their local enemies and those overseas.
The confident statements by the Obama campaign that al-Qaida is now on the run after the elimination of Osama Bin Laden have been shattered with the rise of the most formidable Jihadi state to date under a younger and harsher version of Osama al Baghdadi, the infamous commander of ISIS.
These new Jihadists are marching to Baghdad, referred to by the commander as the last capital of the Abbasids, and from there he promises to march in all directions in order to erect the greater Caliphate: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and beyond. These campaigns may not actually seize all these countries, but terror is certain to reign across the region.
This is one catastrophe the administration was unable to predict or avoid, but there is another catastrophe generated by the former now about to occur. The Ayatollahs are intervening in Iran, and military divisions are moving to confront the Sunni Jihadists on Mesopotamian territory. As I have been predicting (in print) since 2009, Irans geopolitical corridor from Tehran to Beirut will be defended by the Islamic Republic of Iran at all costs.
The Obama Administration has facilitated Irans expansion in the region by eliminating the Iraqi-based Iranian resistance, by abandoning the Green Revolution and allowing it to be crushed, and by cutting the illogical deal with Tehrans regime last year that included transferring cash to the Mullahs. All these inexcusable strategic mistakes allowed Irans forces to thrust into Iraq and Syria, moving entire divisions into the Shia zones of Iraq and drawing closer to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The Obama administration and its political allies in academia and the media often enjoy attributing the root of any Iraq catastrophe to the Bush administration. This perception cannot be farther from reality. The previous administration fought al-Qaida, partnered with Sunni and Shia moderates, and empowered the Kurds. It backed Iranian opposition based in Iraq and inside Iran.
The Bush administration confronted the Ayatollahs and forced Assad out of Lebanon. If anything, the previous administration was failed by parts of its own bureaucracy which became part of the Obama administration and (starting in 2006) by a majority in Congress who until 2010 disrupted the U.S. campaign against the Jihadists and the Iranian regime.
Geopolitically, the Obama administration unilaterally ended its war on the Jihadists while killing bin Laden as a consolation prize. In addition, it offered Iraq to the Ayatollahs when it abruptly withdrew from the country and left it in the hands of pro-Iranians, frustrating the Sunni moderates.
The current administration left Syria to the radicals and Assad and abandoned Lebanon to Hezbollah. Hence, from a strategic analysis perspective, Obama can blame only itself for the Daesh blitzkrieg in Iraqs Sunni triangle and for the forthcoming Iranian invasion.
Is there any way to get the region out of this mess? Any such solution would require going back to the genesis and executing a massive change in U.S. foreign policy a reality we may only see after the midterm elections or, more likely, after 2016.
Walid Phares - Biography
Professor Walid Phares serves as an adviser to the anti-terrorism caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives and is a co-secretary general of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism, a Euro-American caucus, since 2009.
Dr. Phares briefs Congress, the European parliament, and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security and Middle East conflict. He consults with and lectures to several national security and defense agencies as well as to counterterrorism advisory boards in North America and Europe.
He has served on the advisory board of the Task Force on Future Terrorism of the Department of Homeland Security in 2006-2007 as well as on the Advisory Task force on Nuclear Terrorism in 2007.
He has taught global strategies at the National Defense University since 2006. He was a professor of Middle East Studies and Comparative Politics at Florida Atlantic University from 1993-2004.
He has published several books in English, Arabic, and French including the latest three post-9/11 volumes: "Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West"; "The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy"; and "The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad."
His most recent timely book is "The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the East," which has projected the uprisings in the region before they occur.
Phares is the Fox News Channel Middle East and Terrorism Expert. He has served as NBC Terrorism Analyst until 2006. He appears on international and Arab media.
Comments;
As usual, the minute the libs read this they will all become "world class" middle east "experts", and they will all be calling Walid Phares the usual libturd names, and everything will still be "all George Bush's fault"! When I stop to think about it, the libs remind me a lot of mynah birds; (they "talk" constantly, but they have no idea what they're talking about; ), so they're not really "talking" at all.....they're just "making noise" that sounds like talking.
Jul 5, 2014 01:15:19 #
Seventy-Four percent of Americans, across Party, Racial and Demographic lines want nothing to do with Iraq. We broke it, we bought it, we fixed it. We handed it over to them and they broke it again.
Jul 5, 2014 02:17:45 #
"Seventy-Four percent of Americans, . . . want nothing to do with Iraq"
Please quantify how that conclusion was reached and provide your references and/or your source material -- preferably both.
My experience of you sir, is that you are fond of inventing statistics and making assertions that your readers are expected to accept at face value merely because you have waxed pontifical. This latest comment seems to fall completely into that category: here is your chance to prove me mistaken rgrenaderphoto.
Please quantify how that conclusion was reached and provide your references and/or your source material -- preferably both.
My experience of you sir, is that you are fond of inventing statistics and making assertions that your readers are expected to accept at face value merely because you have waxed pontifical. This latest comment seems to fall completely into that category: here is your chance to prove me mistaken rgrenaderphoto.
Jul 5, 2014 03:21:32 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Seventy-Four percent of Americans, across Party, Racial and Demographic lines want nothing to do with Iraq. We broke it, we bought it, we fixed it. We handed it over to them and they broke it again.
Not only is everything about your statement inaccurate, a lie, utter nonsense and just plain old bovine excrement which comes as no surprise, inasmuch as I could have accurately predicted that one of three people of your ilk would have been the first person to jump on this article and attempt to sweep it under the rug.
I'm sure we'll be obliged to suffer through more such nonsense from your two fellow PITA trolls, (the troll woman ands the troll boy. )
Jul 5, 2014 04:19:44 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
Seventy-Four percent of Americans, across Party, Racial and Demographic lines want nothing to do with Iraq. We broke it, we bought it, we fixed it. We handed it over to them and they broke it again.
A simple Google search: 74% Iraq gave me
http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-troops-poll-150451544.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/17/1307603/-PPP-74-of-U-S-Opposes-Troop-Return-to-Iraq
http://www.dailypaul.com/320896/poll-74-of-americans-oppose-sending-us-troops-to-iraq
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/209582-poll-voters-support-obamas-approach-in-iraq
and many more.
I normally don't bother with politics on this site, because I know I'm not going to change anyone's position. People that disagree with me are usually entrenched in their position and have an emotional attachment to it. Generally I find their position based on fear of new information, change or facts. Rather, than argue with them I smile and walk away because as an optimist I believe they probably have family members that secretly vote for my side. How else could we have a Kenyan president lol.
Jul 5, 2014 13:25:13 #
Gitzo wrote:
Not only is everything about your statement inaccurate, a lie, utter nonsense and just plain old bovine excrement which comes as no surprise, inasmuch as I could have accurately predicted that one of three people of your ilk would have been the first person to jump on this article and attempt to sweep it under the rug.
I'm sure we'll be obliged to suffer through more such nonsense from your two fellow PITA trolls, (the troll woman ands the troll boy. )
I'm sure we'll be obliged to suffer through more such nonsense from your two fellow PITA trolls, (the troll woman ands the troll boy. )
Why Gitzo, you commented on one of my posts! And here I thought you were ignoring me around these here parts.
As far as the percentage data:
Gallup: 80% unfavorable.
CBS News: 75%
New York Times: 79%
Quinnipiac: 51%
Which, based on my Liberal California Math Education, averages to 71¼%. So, I admit, 74% was a leetle high. Sorry
:lol:
Jul 5, 2014 16:50:18 #
When one is investigating an incident and seeking the cause, one looks for what is referred to as the "root cause". The root cause is the one thing, that if it had not occurred would have prevented the entire incident.
The root cause of the condition of Iraq today is George W Bush and Dick Cheney lying about wmd and getting us into an unnecessary war.
"Mission Accomplished" my ass.
The root cause of the condition of Iraq today is George W Bush and Dick Cheney lying about wmd and getting us into an unnecessary war.
"Mission Accomplished" my ass.
Jul 6, 2014 10:39:50 #
Hahahahahahahah! :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:
Iraq and all the problems that go with it sit on Big and Little George's doorsteps.
Iraq and all the problems that go with it sit on Big and Little George's doorsteps.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.