"While some on Capitol Hill aren't shy about saying (al-Maliki's) days as the Iraqi leader should come to an end, at the White House it's more of a whisper."Wait, isn't regime change in Iraq how we got into this mess in the first place?
We just can't resist meddling with governments in the Middle East. It's like Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football: Some political cartoonist needs to draw a dude in stereotypical Arabic garb teeing up a little football-sized dictator for a charging Uncle Sam to kick.
We seem to be getting our checklist out of order this time, though... Isn't Diem supposed to get toppled at the beginning of the war, not the end?
13 comments:
The sad thing is that we have the ability to change a regime instantly, cheaply, and with minimum disruption by simply removing those who run it.
Yet we still insist on killing hordes of conscripted peasants and blowing up slums.
Well, since offensive operations were stopped and we have a dem in office, he could be the first president to finish and start a war with the same country.
Now that would be a first. Not one I really want to see, but we have a lame duck with no check or balance that hates Americans.
That sign the road is about to get bumpy is in the rear view mirror.
I didn't work last time toppling Diem at the start so we are seeing if the toppling was out of order.
I know it's un-Christian and even inhumane but I'm starting to like the idea of a "nuke the site from orbit" solution to the Middle East.
Angle drill for the oil from outside the fallout zone.
Isn't Diem supposed to get toppled at the beginning of the war, not the end?
Tactical adjustment. It shows what great war leaders our masters are. This time it's bound to work! (But in case it doesn't, I'm sure the spooks have a lovely high building chosen for the last choppers out.)
I'll see your Diem and Maliki pair, and raise you a Shah and a Chavez.
Iran and the Shah's treatment at the hands of James Earl Carter (spit) should be noted as Jimmie's enduring legacy, one of his gifts that just keeps on giving.
And Chavez survived only because George W. Bush got compassionate or confused, or something, when a coup was overthrowing the TWO BILLION dollar dictator early in his reign, and failed to provide the mere verbal support that would have led to years of better life for all Venezuelans.
Of the two I hate Carter's behavior more. But given time, Venezuela could be just as big a mess as Iran has been for 25+ years.
When Bush 41 stopped the Army during the first gulf war I was pretty upset, cause I knew we'd be back to finish the job and it would cost many more lives. Didn't figure on how soon...but I was right.
When Obama pulled the troops back, again I figured we'd be back. And we will. But I don't think it will be because of this. When Iraq completely falls to ISIS or Iran and they threaten the Saudis, we'll be back. The Saudis make friends with both Repubs and Donkies in high places just for this protection.
Yah know, there's a lot to be said for "old fashioned" warfare. You knock a country off it becomes part of your country. Or you just wipe it out and leave. Like Scott J. said...nuke'm from orbit.
Good thing I'm not or ever have been prez. I'd have nuked Mecca after 9/11 after giving everyone 24 hours to get out.
Sorry...guess I'm in a crabby mood today...
Al-Maliki needs to stay away from multi-story buildings and men with nailguns.
mikee,
"Iran and the Shah's treatment at the hands of James Earl Carter (spit) should be noted as Jimmie's enduring legacy, one of his gifts that just keeps on giving."
I'd say the average Iranian was more irked at the treatment of Mosaddegh than the Shah.
Uh, little known fact: there's about 10-15,000 American Troops sitting in Kuwait. Part of the deal that was cut after the Gulf War. Now, since it's, what, a 2-3 hour drive from Kuwait City to Baghdad, Obama could have "Boots on the Ground" in 48 hours. To take on 5,000 or so ISIS Thugs.
But we're sending in 300 SF for Training and Intel? Uh, isn't this Iraqi Army that's run away the same one we were Training for 10 years?
I don't know, but if this...."President" paid more attention to Military Affairs rather than proclaiming that "Global Warming was the Greatest Threat in Human History", Iraq could put on the back burner within a month.
Then we could be concerned with more Important News, like World Cup Soccer! ; )
I think the big problem with the Iraqi army is that generally their officer corps and Sr. NCO's are the first to run. It would appear the logistics group is either very corrupt or grossly incompetent.
As a friend put it, Iraq has a collection of soldiers, not an army.
Gerry
Les -- we haven't been allowed to train the Iraqi Army properly for several years. Had we continued training and supporting them fully all this time, they would only now be realistically capable of operating "without the training wheels". Interupt that evolution mid-way, and it's all for naught.
LCB -- GHWB stopped where he did in DESERT STORM because he didn't have the mandate to go any further, given that he was operating under UN casus belli and ROE. When you outsource all of your strategic decisions, you are kind of stuck with the limits they set. Going so far as to topple Saddam was (probably correctly) thought would completely undermine all Arab support for the war (and there was a lot of reliance on Arab assistance in some cases and apparant neutrality on the other).
Where GHWB really screwed up was in allowing Schwartzkoph's initial cease fire terms to dictate the final cease fire terms (especially use of helicopters in certain zones)and abandoning the immediate post-war uprising entirely. (Unlike Czechoslovakia in 1968 or Hungary in 1956, Iraq in 1991 and 1992 wasn't risking all out nuclear confrontation.)
I keep hearing "Fortunate Son" in my head, and while I love CCR, I dunno....
Post a Comment