MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Obama's Disastrous Iraq Policy: An Autopsy
By ocean-kat on Tue, 06/24/2014 - 2:03pm |Yes, the Iraq War was a disaster of historic proportions. Yes, seeing its architects return to prime time to smugly slam President Obama while taking no responsibility for their own, far greater, failures is infuriating.
But sooner or later, honest liberals will have to admit that Obama’s Iraq policy has been a disaster. Since the president took office, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has grown ever more tyrannical and ever more sectarian, driving his country’s Sunnis toward revolt. Since Obama took office, Iraq watchers—including those within his own administration—have warned that unless the United States pushed hard for inclusive government, the country would slide back into civil war. Yet the White House has been so eager to put Iraq in America’s rearview mirror that, publicly at least, it has given Maliki an almost-free pass.
URL:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obamas-disastrous-iraq-policy-an-autopsy/373225/
- Add new comment
- 2929 reads
Comments
Thanks for posting Beinart's article OK. Really interesting take from Beinart, who back in 2003 supported intervention. But he does have a point, to the extent that the president's rhetoric about the state of Iraq matched the reality, and I think, to the extent the president had an obligation to tell us that leaving Iraq when we did had the potential for yet another series of bloodbaths for the Iraqi people. The thing is, I take from Beinart's piece that he still cannot help believing that the president, by pressing al-Maliki, could have made a material difference. I don't buy it. This is sectarian warfare that we unleashed and, absent boots on the ground -- which nobody wants -- there's not much the U.S. can do about it at this point. That would be the candid conversation I think we're due to hear from the White House.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 06/24/2014 - 7:33pm
I agree with Bruce x2
1) Obama cannot even push Maliki to be inclusive by offering air support against a hostile army has taken over a third of the country, slaughtered its citizens, and now threatens Baghdad. If Maliki isn't persuaded by the slaughter of Shiites and a mortal threat to Iraqi sovereignty, what in hell could Obama have done to persuade him sooner?
2) Everyone seems to believe that Maliki's exclusionist policies brought on Iraq's ruin. Because you know, the ISIS fanatics and Baathist plotters would never have dared attack if Maliki had included more Sunnis in his administration.
I swear that I haven't seen so much bullshit flying around since W banged his drums of war a decade ago.
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/24/2014 - 10:40pm
As AA has often said, posting something in In The News doesn't mean I agree with it. Only that its worth reading. Unlike Cheney and others Beinart makes a good argument worth considering. I'm not convinced that Obama could have pushed Maliki to be more inclusive, at that point what leverage did he have? Or that if he could it would even have worked given how broken Iraq was when he became president. But I sure wish he had been much more engaged in pushing the Shia to be more inclusive. There's a chance it might have led us to a better situation than we're in now.
Also there has been for too much feel good happy talk from Obama when anyone watching the situation knew it was unstable from the beginning and likely to keep deteriorating. Of course there was much more of that foolish happy talk from Bush/Cheney but I expect more from democrats, that's why I vote for them.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/24/2014 - 10:41pm
No you done good OK. It's a real interesting piece and totally in the spirit of the great AA!
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 06/24/2014 - 10:49pm
Agreed (again). In some ways, controversial news posts are better because they inspire more discussion. I do miss AA's news links. Did she get tired of it?
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 06/24/2014 - 11:06pm
AA posted a couple of weeks ago that there's some personal stuff going on that leaves her with less time for things like dagblog.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/24/2014 - 11:17pm
Ah, thanks. I hope that everything is OK.
by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 06/25/2014 - 12:07am
We had no business pushing Iraqis or doing anything else in Iraq. Our obligation was to get out, and Obama took too long to do that.
Also, I don't know how inclusive we could expect the Shiites to be when the Sunnis were massacring tens of thousands of Shiites.
by Aaron Carine on Wed, 06/25/2014 - 8:15am
Poor ocean-kat. You've committed blasphemy by linking to an article doubting Obama's infallibility. It's too late to back out by claiming "posting (...) doesn't mean I agree with it".
Beinart's heresy is to claim that after six years of Obama's leadership, it's no longer good enough to cry "It Was Bush What Done It!" when foreign policy falls apart. What if people applied this to domestic policy? What if people said that after six years of Obama's leadership my kids still don't have a decent job and will never be able to pay off their tuition debt? Crying "IWBWDI!" doesn't work so well there, either. You can see how dangerous this is.
Once they lose Bush as a scapegoat, they will have to find someone else. Next step: Blame the Jews! There's already a whiff of this among some dagbloggers.
by Lurker on Sat, 06/28/2014 - 5:01pm
You obviously haven't been lurking here too long if you haven't noticed I'm one of the biggest Obama critics here. The difference is I try to make substantial criticisms of Obama where he merits criticism. While you link to bullshit articles by Cheney.
There's a lot to criticize Obama and the democrats for. But that's not the whole story. Democrats tried to get a jobs bill passed that I supported. They were blocked by the republican house. The senate passed an Immigration bill that I didn't support because it was too conservative. Yet even by selling out on the principles I believe in to attempt to get republican support it couldn't pass the house. The senate tried to pass gun control legislation that I thought didn't go nearly far enough. It was blocked by the republican filibuster. We have a government with three branches, any one can block legislation. To blame Obama without looking at the actions in the senate and the house is really superficial. Bad as I often thinkthe democrats are anything good they try to do is blocked by the republicans in the house.
Your "blame the jews" comment is just nonsense. Racism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc exist everywhere. But such things don't slide by here. There is overwhelming condemnation and confrontation whenever it appears here.
As for the "In The News" section. There have been a few discussions about its purpose here. Some have assumed that a posting there indicates endorsement. It doesn't, and that point was made several times. All it indicates is a worth while read or a good argument. Unlike republican and red state sites most here at dagblog like to read diverse articles from all sides.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 06/28/2014 - 6:26pm
I have no knowledge (or interest) about most of the bills you mention, but the impression I got, which may well be wrong, is that Obama and the Democrats abandoned traditional bi-partisan legislating, and rammed through Obamacare along party-political lines. If that's true, it's no surprise that the Republicans, once elected, would form their own tight bloc. Did you think you would stay in power forever?
You made this bed; don't come crying if it's lumpy.
As for whether "Blame the Jews!" will wax as "IWBWDI" wanes, time will tell....
by Lurker on Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:34am
You're just tossing out right wing talking points now. No one who looked at the process of passing the ACA objectively would attempt or be able to make that point. I'm not going to get into a long rehash of it but I was criticizing Obama constantly for selling out the liberals and bending so far backwards he was practically kissing his own ass begging for just one republican to vote for Obamacare. A convincing argument, which I disagree with, can be made that this was the best he could get given he had to get 60 votes to override a republican filibuster and there are democrats like Baucus, chairman of the finance committee and totally opposed to single payer in any form. But the idea that Obama didn't compromise at all to get republican votes can not be argued on the facts.
The idea that democrats will "blame the jews" is another right wing talking point. Knowing democrats are sensitive to racism and anti-semitism republicans try to play us. Its bullshit, just an attempt to get some cover given the strain of racism that flows through the far right of the republican party
by ocean-kat on Sun, 06/29/2014 - 3:48pm