Monday, August 11, 2014

Who Writes This Stuff?

This is what I see in my Comcast homepage:


It gets even better, though. It goes to this video. David "I committed a felony in DC and used the 'favored journalist' loophole to avoid prison time" Gregory is responsible for this. Someone gave the green light to this interview; someone else gave the green light to use "ISIS could be a big threat to America" as a title.

To quote the inimitable Monty Burns, "Well, duh."

Gee, we have a radical, violent terrorist group wandering around the newly-liberated Iraq killing people indiscriminately. There are reports of ISIS factions burying women and children alive. All of this is happening in a country that, since 1991, we have had some presence in, and the terrorists behind these acts have come up entirely since we pulled out of the region.

Now, here's where the partisans bicker. The left says that it's Bush's fault for going into Iraq in 2003. He had no plan for dealing with a post-Hussein Iraq, etc. And there is a ring of truth to that - we weren't given a cohesive plan for what was going to happen. I think we expected to depose Hussein and his nutjob kids and have Iraq magically transform into a stable democracy. When it failed to do that, when tribal factions that have been at war for millennia went right back to war once the maniacal despot was taken down, well...

The right points to Obama's complete and utter lack of anything resembling a foreign policy. We withdrew from Iraq as one of the few campaign promises that Obama actually kept, only we did so with a complete and utter lack of understanding what that was going to mean to the area. There wasn't an Iraq capable of dealing with an entity like ISIS, and - nature abhorring a vacuum, ISIS stepped up to be the dominant evil mofos in the area.

And there's a good deal of truth to this, as well. We telegraphed our intent months if not years in advance. "We're pulling all troops out of Iraq on [DATE X] come hell or high water, whether they're ready for us to leave or not." When we did leave, the squabbling and squalling returned in full force, and it was only a matter of time before one group or another established dominance. Like so many other areas, the group that established dominance was the most evil, violent, and bloodthirsty one.

What does this mean for us? Well, if ISIS is in fact on a par with al Quaeda who knows? They might be angling to take a chunk out of us like al Quaeda did with 9/11. They may be content to become the biggest baddest feudal warlords in Iraq. Or, equally frightening, they may herald the rise of the next Saddam Hussein to use their evil acts as a pretext to seize power and drive them from the country.

Frankly, none of these are terribly great outcomes, for either us or the Iraqi people...

That is all.

6 comments:

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

ISIS is not on par with al Quaeda, they're worse. Al Quaeda cut ties with ISIS because ISIS was too fanatically violent.

Pam said...

Agree with Jake. They BEHEAD CHILDREN!!!! They are the new Nazi party and should be hunted down and exterminated.

BenC said...

WE gave them an opportunity they decided they prefered terrorist fanaticism and chaos. You reap what you sow.

Will said...

BenC:

The main problem is we didn't give them the time NECESSARY to change their culture sufficiently to moderate the built-in factionalism inherent to Islam.
Frankly, I'm not even sure that it would be possible to do it. My view of the region says to split the country up into discrete sections, or even separate nations. Take it back a hundred years, like it was before the WW1 Allies decided to play with the political divisions that already existed. This was probably the dumbest thing that Churchill did, and history will curse him for it.

Iraq worked as a nation, only with a very strong leader at the helm. Saddam made sure all potential leaders disappeared, so internal replacements don't exist, and wouldn't for the time needed to grow them.

This really comes down to: if you are not going to do the job right, don't even bother. The end result will be worse. Of course, the Dems have the trademark on this, maybe even hold the patent.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Napalm. Screw the Treaty and use Napalm.

Sabre22 said...

Napalm Hell use the Area to expend nuclear ordinance. and fight the war by their (medieval) rules NOT 21st Century Rules