Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, when asked if he believes the Middle East would be better today if Moammar Gadhafi of Libya and Saddam Hussein of Iraq were still in power, responded, "It's not even a contest."The real estate mogul said!
He related the situations in both of those countries with what is currently happening in Syria and seemed to endorse a stronger President Bashar Assad, even while admitting that he is "probably a bad guy."
"You can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there — it's a mess — if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there — it's a mess — it's [Syria] going to be same thing," the real estate mogul said.
October 4, 2015
Trump seems to say we'd be better off with Saddam Hussein and Gaddafy still in power — and a stronger Assad.
On "Meet the Press" today. Watch the clip at the link. The text is going to look garbled, which is why I'm saying "seems":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
119 comments:
Is this even a question? Of course we would be better off. They were evil men, but they counterbalanced Iran. We managed to totally unbalance the area by removing Iran's opposition. Now the only opposition left to Iran is ISIS, which is a main reason why we went for a deal with Iran. Good job, guys.
I would quickly discount the opinion of anyone who didn't think was true.
Qaddafi, yes. You need to send a signal to totalitarian leaders that there a benefits to détente with the Americans. In fact this administration send the opposite signal -- that détente with the Americans puts you at greater risk of being toppled and killed.
Saddam, no. The world is better off without him. The US stopped killing murderous Muslim fanatics in that country too soon, but that's the fault of this administration, not of taking down Saddam.
Assad, it's hard to say. This administration certainly played it wrong up and down the line. We neither supported him nor put nearly enough effort into toppling him. This leaves us with the worst of all worlds. If we had supported him we might have arranged a quid pro quo that would have increased peace in the Middle East, but that would have required us to have an effective Secretary of State and wise President, and we've had neither in this administration.
Big Mike manages to make a nuanced case that is unlikely to be discussed by the MSM.
Big Mike > Trump > MSM
"The US stopped killing murderous Muslim fanatics in that country too soon, but that's the fault of this administration" Meh - that's the fault of this administration and the last. We played Let's Pretend for a decade. Wiser heads opposed our intervention in the First Iraq War. Each of these countries is going to be ruled by a gang of thugs for the foreseeable future, and we don't necessarily care which thugs they are. We should have blown up some camps and stuff in Afghanistan and maybe a few other places after 9/11 to teach them a lesson, and then left with a warning. But we dreamed that we could fix it.
@MikeR If we had found a way to leave even a token force in Iraq that country would have helped balance Iran. Doing so would not have been difficult if we (Obama) had been willing to negotiate. Pulling all our troops left not even a semblance of balance nor the ability to affect any imbalance that occurred. So, here we are - on the outside looking in.
@MikeR To your second point: "nation-building" is for fools and we have been fools repeatedly. The ME is not Europe. If we are to be in the ME it should only be as the "strongest tribe". That worked until we gave it up.
This administration has no real strategy in the Middle East. Everything we do is ad hoc and reactive, and Iran and Russia have masterfully exploited our confusion and apathy. So Trump has a point.
But Trump would have us disengage even more. Trump might not have turned on Qaddafi, but Trump would have abandoned the Middle East completely and just let it burn. I shudder to think of what would have happened if Trump had been in control since 2009.
I'd go ahead and throw the Taliban into the mix while I was at it, too. The course the US followed in response to 9/11 has been an overreaction to an overblown threat combined with progressive mission creep. The notion that regime change and nation-building would solve our problems was an absurd fantasy. Bush's democracy fetishization was particularly ridiculous. Nearly everything we have done since 2001 has contributed to making the region more volatile and more prone to terrorist activity. We have grown far too dependent on our military as an arm of foreign policy and have massively outsize notions of what it is capable of accomplishing.
khesan, you are right, but it was all predictable. We get tired. We used up all our righteous fury after 9/11, and there was nothing left when Iran started making nuclear weapons. We had no will left to stop them. We only have the will left to blow things up from a distance with drones.
With the Soviet Union that was good enough: our goal was Containment, to slow their expansion enough that they would go bankrupt, which they did. Halt them in Korea, slow them way down in Vietnam, etc.
With the Nazis and Japan the goal was to crush them. We didn't think of them as being a lot of decent guys under a dictator and his henchmen, we hated the SOBs who forced a peaceful nation and a peaceful world into war. All other goals had to wait till they were crushed. We were okay with burning their countries to the ground, and we mostly did it.
Here we had no goal, except to make them into European countries, and that was fantasy.
The current situation in the Middle East is entirely this administration's doing.
Though I do blame the Bush administration for not making it clear that it was the State of Iran we were fighting with since 2005 or so; not just "extremists."
And Libya and throwing all of North Africa into turmoil was entirely arranged by this administration's "Arab Spring" long after Bush left office.
Anyway, at this point:
With Iran now allied to Russia, we can stop worrying about the state of Iran's domestic nuclear program. They want nukes, they got 'em - and the missiles to carry them.
Turkey, a country of 80 million people, has to be up in arms, literally, about their two main historical enemies joining together and invading Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, all formerly Ottoman provinces Turkey thinks by rights should still belong to them.
If Israel was worried before, they now really have reason to be. Iran and Russia joining up with Hezbollah is a very big thing in "the Palestinian Problem."
And Ash Carter thinks this is "not very professional"? I beg to differ - it is very professional which is more than I can say for him and his boss!
"Of course we would be better off."
This is not the issue since Saddam was about to escape the sanctions and go back to his ambitions. Would you have preferred that he own the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields ? That was the alternative.
It is so sad to see people who should know history ignore it.
I do agree with Qaddafi and probably Assad being left alone. The Taliban had facilitated al Qeada and could not be left alone but I think nation building there was a fool's errand. An attempt at nation building in Iraq was probably worth a try but was doomed after Bremer disbanded the army.
It's not even a contest."
Well if you have a "fuck them, they're not American" attitude about it, Trump is probably right. Iraq taking over Kuwait wouldn't have hurt the U.S. that much....it would have sucked for Kuwait. After all Saddam wanted the oil to sell it.
Gaddifi (I love the fact that his name was spelled so many ways, anything close works) was actually starting to behave responsibly.
Europe probably wouldn't be facing an invasion if those three strongmen were still in power.
"Would you have preferred that he own the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields ? That was the alternative." You seem to think this is a knockout question. Yes, I would prefer that. As I said above, we don't necessarily care which gang of thugs owns which country. He was a counterweight to Iran, and that's what we needed. What we got is far worse, at the cost of a trillion dollars and all the political gains the Republicans had made for several decades. Republicans had the presidency, the Senate, and the House, and this is what they spent it on.
I share the blame. We were all panicked by 9/11. But it's sad. Osama bin Ladin wrought better than he knew.
The course the US followed in response to 9/11 has been an overreaction to an overblown threat
Hi-jacking four jumbo jets and flying them into buildings is an overblown-threat?
What the fuck would a real threat be?
Gaddafi and Assad had not been "left alone." They had been persuaded to pull in their claws and play nice or else.
And never mind the "nation building." With 50,000+ American troops in Iraq and making themselves comfortable as if they were intending to stay, things were looking up for democracy, etc.
Remember all the burqah ladies with purple fingers?
'Well if you have a "fuck them, they're not American" attitude about it' Unfair. I have a "we are not supermen" attitude. This is out of our league, we cannot police that part of the world and shouldn't, and it just took us too long to realize it.
We saved the planet from barbarism in WWII and again in the Cold War, and the world owes us a tremendous debt of gratitude, but that doesn't mean that we're going to get anything for it, and it doesn't mean we can or should run out and do it the next time someone has a problem.
The US spends pretty much as much as everyone else combined on our military. If Europe or Korea or Japan thinks that they need our services, they need to be paying for it.
I kind of agree with that having seen how it is falling apart now.
The U.S. has had warships in the Mediterranean since 1805 and have played a role - much of the time a major role - in Middle East politics right along.
You guys just have not been paying attention.
" Yes, I would prefer that. As I said above, we don't necessarily care which gang of thugs owns which country. "
Fair enough. I think that is a valid discussion but one that most leftists (I'm not saying you are one) evade by asserting that "the sanctions were working," which is a lie.
It may be that we could deal with Saddam as the oil baron of the Middle East. Of course, fracking was not an option at the time and now that it has succeeded in spite of Obama and the environazis, we have more options.
I honestly don't know.
Putin and Suleiman getting together is a bit like Stalin and Hitler and may last as long with somewhat the same outcome.
I have a "we are not supermen" attitude. This is out of our league, we cannot police that part of the world and shouldn't,
I get that.
I'm just not real comfortable with standing by when people accumulate piles of billion dollar bills while throwing other people into wood chippers feet first.
However, I would be fine with the government issuing Letters of Reprisal and allowing volunteers to do the dirty work.
I think they should have issued Letters of Marque and Reprisal to deal with the Somali pirates.
The U.S. put an end to the Barbary pirates; not with the famous raid, but because the U.S. Navy stayed in the Mediterranean and the U.S. Government put "diplomatic" pressure on the Sultan and the Ottoman beys.
Start with the Shah of Iran and work forward.
Anyway, it is useless to talk about what "should be done" in the Middle East now, because this administration is not going to do it.
What the guys and dolls running for president need to do is try to guess what the world is going to look like 18 months from now and devise a strategy to deal with that.
Perhaps, as the world's leading trading nations, we should try to convince the Chinese to join with us to quell the wars and keep the peace. Or, considering the probable state of our military by then, ask if we please may join with them.
"That had nothing to do with removing him from power 12 years later."
Here comes the historical arguments. It had everything to do with it.
Why were we there ?
Now, you can say we could have tiptoed out of Saudi in 2002 after we had been attacked by Osama BECAUSE we were in Saudi.
That would have worked well. We would be where we are now.
Sorry, ahistorical. Autocorrect has its own vocabulary.
Gahrie said:
Hi-jacking four jumbo jets and flying them into buildings is an overblown-threat?
What the fuck would a real threat be?
That's too easy. WWII was a real threat. The Soviet Union with thousands of nukes aimed at us was a real threat. Cuba with nuclear missiles was a real threat.
A few fanatics armed with box cutters doesn't begin to compare. Have you not noticed that there haven't been any hijackings since 9/11? Passengers now know that there is no safety in complying with the hijackers, only in attacking and defeating them. How big is a threat that is eliminated just by a change in attitude by airline passengers?
The panic following 9/11 brought us the TSA, the Patriot Act, massive NSA spying on all of us, torture, and the Iraq invasion. The only reaction that made any sense was the assistance we provided the Northern Alliance in their fight with the Taliban. Once the Alliance was victorious, we should have left them to their own devices.
The stupidity of the voters in allowing Bush to panic them into invading Iraq has only been compounded by the amazing incompetence of Obama. They both suck.
China has warships in the Mediterranean now. That is a first ever. And if anybody, who can, will do anything about the Somali pirates today, like the U.S. did about the Barbary Coast ones, it will be te Chinese.
China has a bit of common border with Afghanistan on the Old Silk Road and at least eastern Afghanistan is part of China's traditional "sphere of influence." Western China is all Moslem territory with non-Chinese population, and the Taliban and the troubles in the Middle East are causing the CCP internal problems.
There are areas where United States and Chinese interests run together.
By the time Oma is gone, the U.S. may very well be out of the Middle East - all of it - and the problem may just be to keep the war(s) inside it to keep from spreading.
I was struck by Chuck Todd asking the same question ("So you think we would have been better off with leaving Kaddafi and Hussein in power?") three times as if he thought he'd really gotten Trump to say something stupid. I'm certainly no fan of Trump but it amazes me when journalists think they've "gotten you" when you openly admit to speaking "that which should not be spoken"
Furthermore, doesn't Chuck realize that Trump is simply more open about a policy that this administration clearly adheres to?
PS gotta admit, Trump sounded good in this clip. Don't necessarily agree but he sounded good.
PPS Love that Trump got NBC to agree to Trump-laden background
Trump is finally right.
I think Trump is correct. Assad is part of a persecuted Islamic minority, the Alawites. They will be slaughtered in a genocide if he falls, like the minorities in Iraq. And many of the 2.5 million of them will likely try to flee into Europe in that outcome. Additionally Assad probably is the least worst of the potential leaders of Syria and may be the only leader able to keep ISIS from taking over the entire country. So at this point I am supporting the Russian actions as the best of the bad choices in the region.
Friend, you will not have just Assad in Syria; you will have Assad and the Russians and the Ayatollahs.
This is not going to end well.
Anybody who says we overreacted by invading Afghanistan loses me and most of America in one breath. If anything, we should have used even more overwhelming power and unleashed the military to leave a lasting impression on anybody watching -- which was everybody -- that only an unpleasant, muddy, tiresome death awaits any who attack or conspire to attack the United States.
We are in a fight. The other side gets to decide that for us. We should make them reconsider or risk everything.
It's hard for me to imagine the next president being more feckless than Obama, but Trump is certainly auditioning for that role.
and we'd be better with Hitler still in power, and North Korea winning against south Korea.
MikeR wrote:
Is this even a question? Of course we would be better off. They were evil men, but they counterbalanced Iran. We managed to totally unbalance the area by removing Iran's opposition. Now the only opposition left to Iran is ISIS, which is a main reason why we went for a deal with Iran. Good job, guys.
But if we still had troops in Iraq when dealing with Iran and trying to get them to not continue with nukes, would we be in the position we are in now? Didn't we in fact counterbalance the scenario towards Irans favor by doing exactly what Obama did?
Mike R wrote:
played Let's Pretend for a decade. Wiser heads opposed our intervention in the First Iraq War. Each of these countries is going to be ruled by a gang of thugs for the foreseeable future, and we don't necessarily care which thugs they are. We should have blown up some camps and stuff in Afghanistan and maybe a few other places after 9/11 to teach them a lesson, and then left with a warning. But we dreamed that we could fix it.
Bush and Clinton couldn't go back to life prior to the first Gulf War. We had already contained Iraq. THey had already agreed to a cease fire. We had already stated that it was our foreign policy goals to oust sadaam and push for democracy in Iraq. All before Bush took office. Bush had to deal with the Iraq we were containing. Not the Iraq prior to the Gulf War.
And yes, we do care which thugs rule the country. The thugs that ruled the country after Sadaam were not threatening the region with the threat of WMD's requiring us to contain Iraq.
ANd your argument that we should have just dropped a few vombs and leveled a few camps and that would teach them a lesson is ludicrous. What lesson do you think that would teach them? Other than that we really aren't committed to doing anything. And proving that Osama Bin Laden was right and we are a paper tiger.
Do I dream that our involvement will fix the ME and turn it into a utopia? Hell no. But there is such a thing as "Not as bad as that which came before". If Japan that came after WWII isnt' as bad as Hirohito's Japan that's pretty darn good. If German after WWII isnt' Nazi germmany I'll take it.
Iraq was no western democracy. BUT when Maliki proved to be a problematic leader he was removed through the democratic process. And that's better than if Sadaam was still in power. Because he wouldn't be removed. And despite Maliki setting Sunni's against Shia's we are not discussing setting up no fly zones in Iraq, because they aren't threatening the world with renewed WMD production. So, better than that which came before. I'll take it.
We expended a lot of blood and treasure to get to that point. Its pretty disheartening to hear people say we should throw away our gains after making such sacrifices. We also get to see the result of us doing that.
MikeR wrote:
khesan, you are right, but it was all predictable. We get tired. We used up all our righteous fury after 9/11, and there was nothing left when Iran started making nuclear weapons. We had no will left to stop them. We only have the will left to blow things up from a distance with drones.
YOU didnt' have anything left. YOU Didnt' have the will. I would think that if we know that we shouldn't have demanded that it be contained. Yet again we commit to something and then don't do the steps. Only, if you were running and your message was "I will do absolutely nothing to deal with Iran getting nuclear weapons" do you think you should be entrusted with the power to run the country? that's worse than Obama. who at least made the pretence of putting down a red line with Syria.
That's a great lesson to teach our enemies. Do what you want, we're too tired to stop you. We're going to take a nap now.
-cont- meanwhile, Russia is not too turned to make themselves the dominant player in the ME. And they get to prop up all the dictators that we have been fighting since the 70's. And rub our noses in it while they're at it. Maybe we should Have Putin running for president.
"...and there was nothing left when Iran started making nuclear weapons."
As far as can be determined, Iran has not started making nuclear weapons...just as Saddam did not have extant WMD or WMD programs, and was no threat to us, and intended no threat to us, and the entire war of "righteous fury" was a lie and a war crime.
As far as the subject of the thread goes, yes, we would be better off if we had never invaded any of the ME nations, and, more important, the millions of people living in those nations would be better off.
you first comment said it all ...MikeR
"..............MikeR said...
Is this even a question? ..................."
Big Mike sez: "The US stopped killing murderous Muslim fanatics in that country too soon"
How long would have been enough?
Do you REALLY think that Muslim fanatics, who have a history of waging jihad for 1,400 years, would have quit after 1 more year or 5 more years or 10 more years of American presence?
See, they're smarter than you are. They take the long view. The War on Terror has now lasted 14 years. To the enemy you're speaking of, 14 years is just a walk around the block.
Jeff: "A few fanatics armed with box cutters doesn't begin to compare."
But we didn't know that at the time.
In the days right after 9-11, all kinds of worst-case scenarios were being considered:
What if al-Qaeda blows up Hoover Dam? (The resulting flood would kill 100,000 people downstream.)
What if al-Qaeda manages to blow up some nuclear reactors? (The resulting radioactive fallout could not only kill thousands but leave the land contaminated.)
What we didn't know at the time was that al-Qaeda had already achieved their goal. They had brought the U.S. into direct confrontation with the worldwide Muslim ummah. They expected more and more Muslims to join the jihad.
Well, the Muslims didn't join al-Qaeda as Osama had hoped. But tens of thousands of them are now joining ISIS.
@Gahrie:
"Hi-jacking four jumbo jets and flying them into buildings is an overblown-threat?
What the fuck would a real threat be?"
The Cuban Missile crisis was the first to pop to my mind.
Remember, the people who perpetrated 9/11 arrived in this country legally on international flights and began implementing their scheme. How nation-building in the middle east is supposed to protect us from a threat like that I have no idea. Al Qaeda was always a minuscule little nothing of an organization that got lucky.
@sinz52:
"What if al-Qaeda blows up Hoover Dam? (The resulting flood would kill 100,000 people downstream.)"
Okay. So how does nation-building Afghanistan stop Al Qaeda from blowing up the Hoover Dam?
Really, I thought it was government forcing banks to lend to those who couldn't pay the mortgage, you learn something new everyday, what if one day they took Hoover, then Indian Point, then a major train station, like they've done in Madrid, London, Moscow, like they attempted on the one from Brussels, a dozen of those attacks in short order, would put some serious hurt on us,
the millions of people living in those nations would be better off.
Except of course the ones being raped or thrown feet first into a wood chipper.
But hey, eggs, omelet and all that.
Saddam was no benevolent leader, he drove the Shia out of politics and public life, even though they were the majority, he did nothing to Khomeini, in the 15 years he was a guest in Karbala, he didn't invade Iran for any reason, then he thought he could win an easy battle,
Muammar was less of a problem, except for the support he provided to the PLO, Carlos the Jackal, the IRA, the ETA, the Red Army Faction, well you get the picture, but he was against
AQ from the start, this is why one of those figures, the late Anas al Libi, tried to get the Brits to get rid of him, 17 years ago,
Tomlinson, the British version of Snowden gave us that piece of information,
and had W instituted conscription and rationing, the left would have been the first to denounce him on that score, just like they cared about afghanistan being the good war, till the surge,
Choose to fight or choose not to fight. But if you do choose to fight, make sure when you're done, they don't want to fight any more.
But we don't do total war no more. We do "counter-insurgency". General Sherman call your office.
Ok. What do I know? Well, I do know we haven't won a war since WW II. We've got a lot of big bombs goin to waste, don't we?
It's ok. I'm sure the next world policeman will be just as nice as us with the same rules of engagement and respect for the local child rape culture and everything.
The left always subverts the war effort (I.e. "aids and comforts the enemy") and then elects a surrenderer in chief, and then says, "See? Look how bad that turned out?"
"Lol. No foresight at all..."
Drones will be the good part.
now Trump was one who said 'Bush lied us into war' I guess it's a new york thing, but it's a strong mark against him,
Only ritmo could be that much of a fool, anyways the people who have turned Syria into a hell hole, are the same who did the same in Libya, and Iraq, the Islamists, although those secular Baathists have a way of picking up the hijab, when the mood hits them,
I know such things make sense when Stewart or Maher say it, but it removes all doubt to most sentience beings,
now Bashir wasn't that clever himself, he used his nation's resources, to channel said Salafis against coalition forces in Iraq, put them in jail when they came back, let them loose like djinn in an amnesty,
like I say removing all doubt, in the first instance, we fought AQ, in the second and third, we employed AQ elements to take out said problematic leaders,
"I think the Obama election is directly attributable to George W. Bush.
The Americans supported Bush's legacy so much... they elected a junior senator from Illinois, who promised to withdraw, withdraw, withdraw, to replace him."
And it didn't work out too well considering. If Trump supported Obama and his push for withdrawal then he's shown himself to be unqualified to hold office.
If Trump argued that Bush lied us into war, he is engaged in left wing talking points not based on actual facts. And that shows he is unqualified to hold office.
well he was gripped with Bush derangement syndrome, it must have been going around at the time, he said nice things about Palin then, he slobbered over Obama the first year,
we'll chalk it up to some 'choosing poorly' by many who should have known better, also McCain throwing the match, because it's not like it mattered,
and where are you getting that Trump is opposed to war?
"Donald Trump wants to "knock the hell out of" Iraq's oil fields in order to strike ISIS.
And then he wants to take over the oil fields and funnel the profits back to the United States, funds he would use to take care of veterans and their families.
"You take away their (ISIS's) wealth, that you go and knock the hell out of the oil, take back the oil," Trump said this weekend on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Army Chief of Staff disagrees with Trump on ISIS
"We're going to have so much money," he added.
Trump said he would use ground troops to accomplish that mission."
So its better for Sadaam to remain in power, but we need to send in troops and bomb ISIS to take back the oil fields? Tell me more, Donald.
@jr565:
"Our withdrawal destabilized the region too."
No, it didn't. Iraqis, given national self-determination, do not want to live inside a border together. About a fifth of the population (the Kurds) have already carved a de facto state out of Iraq's carcass, which was itself carved out of the carcass of the Ottoman Empire by the European powers. See the Balkans for a similar story. The notion that some small residual US miltiary garrison can contain these dynamics is ludicrous. Cheney correctly predicted this exact course of events in the early 1990s when the administration was criticized for not brining down Hussein.
Tell me more Mary how Trump is not advocating more wars? OF course, he will argue the exact opposite the next day, since he has no consistency on policies. But, lets talk about his invasion and bombing proposals. You are a supporter of Him, yes? Are you ok with him advocating war to deal with ISIS? Got any better ideas?
J Farmer wrote:
No, it didn't. Iraqis, given national self-determination, do not want to live inside a border together. About a fifth of the population (the Kurds) have already carved a de facto state out of Iraq's carcass, which was itself carved out of the carcass of the Ottoman Empire by the European powers. See the Balkans for a similar story. The notion that some small residual US miltiary garrison can contain these dynamics is ludicrous.
We had contained the country. And maintained the peace. Your hypotheticals can't be tested since we withdrew all troops. But we now get to see a country overrun by ISIS. We can test THAT. WE can also test us not being able to meaningfully contain Iran. Sounds like policies of failure.
J Farmer, we had how many years of NO major violence in Iraq? No containment. No threat of WMD. it wasn't overrun by ISIS until after we withdrew. So we destabilized the region by withdrawing. Do you really think ISIS would dare invade Iraq if we were there?
the left and Paulites always think we are at fault, 'we deserved 9/11,' because of the Palestinians, who no one in the region cares about, otherwise they would have integrated into all the Arab countries as their brethren,
@jr565:
"Do you really think ISIS would dare invade Iraq if we were there?"
"Invade" does't even make sense in this context. This is not an outside force. These are people who have lived in the region for a millennia. How compelled do you think they are to respect a border drawn by the French and the British less than a century ago?
"While Trump suggested that he would then send in Exxon or another oil company to quickly rebuild the infrastructure once the conflict is over, Francona and Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, another CNN military analyst, said rebuilding infrastructure is easier said than done -- especially when other surrounding infrastructure has been damaged in the process.
"We've made some huge mistakes in terms of just bombing things we think can just bring a nation to its knees," Hertling said. "It's not the people you're going against and yet those are the ones you're going against the most when you're talking about indiscriminate carpet-bombing."
So Trump advocates bombing and sending in troops. AND THEN FUCKING NATION BUILDING? SO if Exxon rebuilds the infrastructure who's going to be there to provide support? That's right, the troops. How is this different than nation building under Bush? Because Exxon is involved? Exxon can't deal with an insurgency. What if one happens?
So, Mary, you are supporting someone who wants to bomb ISIS,send in the troops, and nation build. No blood for oil.
they are the ruling class of Iraq, almost all the top people are ex Iraqi military, because they can kill Kurds, Christians, Jews, Shia, what they did under Saddam, as their forefathers as part of the Golden Square,
I've held the same opinion that Donald Trump mouthed since Desert Storm. One of the great days in my life occurred while I was camping on the Euphrates with a MASH unit and President Bush stated that we would not be going further into Iraq. We all knew that if we did, we'd be there ten years later because it would disrupt the balance of power in that part of the world. By "we" I meant me and those around me. We had no exit strategy for such an invasion, the goal of Desert Storm was met, and we had no business doing any more. Most people don't know that we spent the next months atritting the Iraqi forces until he had just enough to chek the Iranians, but since our unit was placed right at the end of the runway where the majority of A-10 aircraft were stationed, we got to see it first hand.
It was a stratigic and tactical mistake to go into Iraq after 9/11. The military knew it, anyone who was in Desert Storm knew that there was no exit plan and that chaos would result and the administration was told that this would happen.
Trump merely stated the obvious.
@mikeyes:
Could not agree with your assessment more. However, I think it is far too kind to simply say it was a "strategic and tactical mistake." It was a calamitous disaster cheerlead by a group of career bureaucrats who had been getting important foreign policy questions totally wrong since at least the Ford administration. Their primary exit strategy was to hand the keys over to a two-bit conman like Ahmed Chalabi, who (surprise, surprise) possessed about zero legitimacy and popular support within Iraq.
Mary E. Glenn wrote:
You didn't forsee that the US would have to withdraw troops one day?
One day sure. On a day when us withdrawing would lead to a vacuum that allowed ISiS to come in and start raping women and chopping off peoples heads. A JV team that we could have wiped out in a week. But were too busy acting like simpering cowards. Those rapes are on you, lady.
"You should have just stayed and raped the women yourselves, for all the peace and protection the US military invasion provided to the women of Iraq. Enough with the chivalry. Now... we're bombing hospitals. Ov vey. Real men don't celebrate these types of wars, or results."
I"m not big on totalitarian thugs raping ladies. they wouldn't be in Iraq if you hadn't counseled we withdraw. Remember when the NYT said we needed to withdraw even if a genocide were to occur? Thats your position. SO if a genocide does occur, and you are counselling that we have to do this even if genocide happens, you can't really have a problem with genocide can you.
I have no problem if you state your libertarian isolationist theories. Just don't also get on a high horse and accuse others of standing for rape and what not. That's your position. you want us to be neutral while it happens. Ok then.
FYI The Syrian and Libya Backstory of American Hubris
"Glad that you are coming to terms with truth, after so much time. The WMD thing was kinda funny --- Bush looking for 'em hidden under the couch cushions, and in his golf bag and all."
As you said when it came to the Iraq war, it took us years to get in. We got into Iraq AFTER we got into Afghanistan. Giving Sadaam ample time to destroy or move stockpiles to Syria. Do you think we should still have maintained containment? If we hadn't do you think honestly that Sadaam wouldn't have new WMD"s in a month?
@jr565:
Saudi Arabia is the regional hegemon. Why can't it send in troops and knock out the "JV team?" How about Turkey? They are a large regional military power who share a border with Syria. Where in the Constitution is the US government entitled to be the regional security force for countries on the other side of the globe?
ah Larry Johnson, the fellow who told us terrorism wasn't a major problem, two months before 9/11, yes we know Assad's men, were perfectly willing to carry the scorpions, on the hope that they wouldn't get bit, but Qaddafi did cooperate with us, out of self interest, even turning in his nuclear program, that will teach people to trust us,
It's like... there were no thinkers involved.
Trump understand this. The Bushes and Cheneys -- and their girls -- do not.
And yet Trump proposes we bomb ISIS, and send in ground troops. Then send in Exxon to help nation build. Does Trump in fact understand this?
@jr565:
Would you support a policy of regime change against Saudi Arabia? Why or why not?
I think Arab spring was Saudi's idea with the help of Obama of installing Sunni Muslim regimes in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. I wonder what the Saudis will do now that Putin has got into the picture and Obama is feckless.
Dunno about Saddam, but Gadaffi should have stayed in power.
He may be a puppet, but he was OUR puppet!
Sometimes the best option is to have pet dictators.
yes that makes sense, consider all the contributers to her foundation from Qatar, the Kingdom et al, who Huma Abedin first worked for, and she was one of the prime movers in this policy,
why, Mary E. Glenn can't you address what Trump said about what he'd do in regards to ISIS? It sounds awfully neoconish to me. i thought you didn't like interventionist policies.
J Farmer wrote:
Would you support a policy of regime change against Saudi Arabia? Why or why not?
Currently no. The regime is not engaged in WMD production and has actually provided assistance when, for example, we needed to contain Iraq. It doesn't mean they are our friends but we don't need to necessarily have a regime change
Paul wrote:
Dunno about Saddam, but Gadaffi should have stayed in power.
He may be a puppet, but he was OUR puppet!
Sometimes the best option is to have pet dictators.
We had already gotten Qaddafi to bend over the barell and give up his nuke program. What did we gain by overthrowing the regime?
@narciso, US has always been a puppet of Saudi's including W and his father and the rest. Republicans have always kowtowed to Saudis and now we have Obama doing the same.
the problem is the Sauds are still the more moderate faction that could stay in power, the tribes are much less pro American,
Face it, we are 5th century Rome. Fat and taking it as easy as we can. We've lost about 6500 lives in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, over 14 years and out of a population of 320 million. We lose that many on our roads in about 2and a half months. But those deaths are worth it. We lost over half a million in the Civil War and almost that much in WWII.
In short, we are simply unwilling to do what it takes to "make America great again." We don't have the stomach... Or the chest.
Mary said: "You sound like someone who watches too much tv."
... says the reality tv star groupie.
well that wasn't how Robert Lacey, portrayed it, they saw W as treating them like just another country, they didn't like Gitmo as a pen for their most troublesome countrymen,
-cont- what about a country like Iran though? I'm not calling for regime change necessarily. But we are trying to contain Iran. Unlike, say Libya or Egypt. There is therefore a greater need for us to force cooperation. If that can be done through diplomacy, great. But if it requires us to have troops on their border, maybe we should have kept some in Iraq.
The mere fact that we are containing them suggests that regime change might also be in order. We need to determine how important it is that they don't get nukes. If it's not that important then why even bother continuing containment?
We'd have a lot more leverage if we hadn't bugged out from Iraq, or put down a red line on Syria and then backed down. Now iran knows it can play us.
And if they can play us it means more likelihood that they will not capitulate and will go on developing nukes. Which will push us closer to needing regime change.
Don't know who Lacey is and don't care. Saudi's playing dirty and using the US has been known for decades.
no, late republic rome, after the jugurthan, before the conflict with pontus, we have many caesars to look forward to,
our first major landwar in asia, was in the phillipines, which lasted about as long as Iraq,
it's where the generation of our top commanders in World War One were tested,
"the problem is the Sauds are still the more moderate faction that could stay in power, the tribes are much less pro American"
Osama bin Laden was not exactly friendly towards the Saudi's either. Yes a lot of the hijackers were from SA. But Al Qaeda was opposed to the Saudis almost as much as they were to the Americans. Because they let us put troops in there when we contained Iraq.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. By no means does that mean they are our friend. But they aren't as much enemies as Al Qaeda is, or as ISIS should be.
mary E. Glenn wrote:
Oh, so 9-11 had nothing to do with our invasion?
it had a lot to do with it. We had contained Iraq. Containment was facing. We contained Iraq because of WMD's. Al Qaeda had been trying to get WMDs. because containment was basically collapsing we needed to deal with Iraq so that the two issues didn't more closely intersect. They were more tangentially related, but after 9/11 we couldn't continue with an Iraq that continued to pose a threat for WMD's and which couldn't realistically be contained.
Narciso said: "no, late republic rome, after the jugurthan, before the conflict with pontus, we have many caesars to look forward to."
Maybe so, except they weren't full on pussies yet; they still glorified war. And they didn't have their women fighting in their armies, if I remember correctly.
take marius, the victor of the former, and a player in the latter, he was the third general in that long standing engagement, who captured Jugurtha, actually his lieutenant Sulla did that, 'but that's not important right now,'
J. Farmer said...
@jr565:
Saudi Arabia is the regional hegemon. Why can't it send in troops and knock out the "JV team?" How about Turkey? They are a large regional military power who share a border with Syria. Where in the Constitution is the US government entitled to be the regional security force for countries on the other side of the globe?
Which is why we invaded Iraq. The greatest strategic option with the most callateral benefits.
Give the arabs anouther thousand years of development and then try democracy again.
I assume they won't let women vote.
A banal truth contains more genius than the works of Dickens, Gustave Aymard, Victor Hugo, Landelle. With these latter a child, surviving the universe, would not be able to reconstruct the human soul. With the former, he could. I presume that he would not sooner or later discover the definition of sophism.
- Lautreamont
MikeR said...
"'Well if you have a "fuck them, they're not American" attitude about it' Unfair. I have a "we are not supermen" attitude. This is out of our league, we cannot police that part of the world and shouldn't, and it just took us too long to realize it."
This is garbage. We could have easily destroyed the taliban and al queada. We just had a president take over in 2009 that didn't want us to.
BN said...
"Face it, we are 5th century Rome. Fat and taking it as easy as we can. We've lost about 6500 lives in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, over 14 years and out of a population of 320 million. We lose that many on our roads in about 2and a half months. But those deaths are worth it. We lost over half a million in the Civil War and almost that much in WWII.
In short, we are simply unwilling to do what it takes to "make America great again." We don't have the stomach... Or the chest."
Exactly right. Except you left out we have a lot of people in this country that want the world to be more like China and less like the United states.
Achilles:
Destroyed the Taliban and Al Qaeda, established a functional state in Iraq (with the same commitment as Europe, Japan, etc.), and maintained normal relationships with liberty loving people. However, i'm not sure if the previous administration would have assassinated the Gaddafi regime, staged a coup in Ukraine, or promoted the far left "Arab Spring" social justice movement. The Obama-created and social activist advanced humanitarian disaster to cross three continents is really quite remarkable.
@n.n.
How do you establish a "functional state in Iraq" when the population doesn't want it? Please explain to me how US garrison troops will convince Iraq's various factions to put aside their centuries-long grievances and work together cooperatively.
@Achilles:
Why do you think the Soviets were unable to subjugate Afghanistan after 8 years of war against that country? Why was Bush unable to "destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban?" Why was Petraeus' surge strategy a failure in Afghanistan?
@BN
"In short, we are simply unwilling to do what it takes to "make America great again." We don't have the stomach... Or the chest."
So how many innocent people should we be willing to kill to "make America great again?" Do you have a number in mind? One million? Two million? Three million? How many American military service members are you prepared to sacrifice to "make America great again?"
Russian bomber caught inside Turkey. I looked at the city it was flying over. Yep, filled with Syrian refugee's. I suspect that little camp across the road on the left is where they train Army volunteers to be sent back in to fight Assad.
well things would certainly be more stable. Better? Depends. But undoubtedly more stable
J. Farmer said: "So how many innocent people should we be willing to kill to "make America great again?"
Nobody's innocent in a war. Just because young men are the ones who have to do the fighting, and old war-experienced men are the ones who naturally have to lead them, that doesn't make the rest of their society that wages war "innocent." kill however many it takes to make their society decide to give up. Otherwise, they won't.
J. Farmer said: "How many American military service members are you prepared to sacrifice to "make America great again?"
Well, a bunch, I guess, to be honest. I believe in the ancient glory of heroic men doing heroic things for their country in war. But frankly, I'd prefer just to drop a few atom bombs and dare the UN to stop us.
Too much, right?
That's why we don't win wars anymore. Oh well. I suppose the rest of the world is cool with that and will remain so forever.
"cool with that" should be "cool with that limited rules of engagement style of conducting war."
@BN:
Wow. You betray a pretty callous regard for the value of innocent human life. You might as well write Planned Parenthood a big check. It doesn't even make sense to use the word "war" if you're going to invoke the conflicts of the past, which were significantly different than the events of today. There is no coherent nation-state with an organized military for one thing. That alone makes comparison to the tactics and strategies of the great wars of the past meaningless. You're fighting an entire population whose loyalties may be one way or another and may be malleable to one degree or another. The aim of a traditional war is to gain political control over some defined territory. We have no such goal here. So if you're saying we should therefore just kill everybody in order to get rid of the few bad apples, then you are essentially advocating what the Nazis were hung for at Nuremberg. The borders of that area are ultimately going to be drawn by the people who live there. Ask a Yugoslavian. It is in our best national interest to stay out of there and let those backwards people fight it amongst themselves. There is no reason for the US at this moment to be at "war" with anybody. We are not currently under attack, and we face no imminent threats. Exactly who or what are we at "war" with, and how can we possibly know when such a "war" was ever won?
J. Farmer said...
@n.n.
How do you establish a "functional state in Iraq" when the population doesn't want it? Please explain to me how US garrison troops will convince Iraq's various factions to put aside their centuries-long grievances and work together cooperatively
They seemed to be doing alright until Obama. It might not have been our desired version of a democracy, but it seemed to be a good start to an arab version of democracy.
The cuurent situation in Iraq is without the stabilizing influence of some US troops in Iraq.
Post a Comment