Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:11 AM Jun 2014

No matter what Obama does re Iraq, I have sympathy for him.

I may well not agree with what he does, but that's another story.

When it comes to foreign policy (which of course impacts domestic policy as well), President Obama was handed an appalling nightmare crafted by the bushies. And Iraq may well have been the worst piece of it. There were no great, good or even decent options. Yes, I thought we should just get the fuck out, but I recognized that that didn't have a good ending either.

What is happening in Iraq is the responsibility of those who took us to war there, not the guy who came in to office years later.

Iraq is not President Obama's war. It never was and it never will be.

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No matter what Obama does re Iraq, I have sympathy for him. (Original Post) cali Jun 2014 OP
Apparently its Obama's responsibility to solve a 1500 year old conflict... phleshdef Jun 2014 #1
no, I don't think so. cali Jun 2014 #2
Well yea. Thats a given. phleshdef Jun 2014 #3
The most obvious and disastrous mistake in my adult lifetime BeyondGeography Jun 2014 #4
Replace "should or could have known better" with "did know better." Iggo Jun 2014 #10
Trying to be charitable BeyondGeography Jun 2014 #12
Charitable. Good word. I get that. Iggo Jun 2014 #14
I believe he asked for the job. MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #5
not surprising you would believe that. spanone Jun 2014 #22
I am so glad... AnotherWyoDemocrat Jun 2014 #6
He's in a tough spot. dawg Jun 2014 #7
There is. Leave. grahamhgreen Jun 2014 #18
that's fine and good that you have sympathy bigtree Jun 2014 #8
I don't agree with him. I have sympathy for his having been handed a shit sandwich. cali Jun 2014 #9
I've been criticizing Obama on Iraq since before he was elected bigtree Jun 2014 #11
But you support an Iraq War Yes Voter with great abandon.... Bluenorthwest Jun 2014 #13
I've defended Hillary Clinton on many issues and I've defended her supporters from attacks here bigtree Jun 2014 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Jun 2014 #16
It is when he escalates it. grahamhgreen Jun 2014 #17
It's Obama's war, now. These are just excuses. nt Romulox Jun 2014 #19
no, it's not. It's bush's war. and your proclamation comes void of explanation of any kind cali Jun 2014 #21
"Intellectually crud" is an apt description of that post. stevenleser Jun 2014 #24
You're so passive aggressive. Attack me directly, not to a third party. Romulox Jun 2014 #25
I'm not interested in dialoguing with you. You have nothing to offer. nt stevenleser Jun 2014 #27
Right. But you are most definitely interested in dialoguing *ABOUT* me. Romulox Jun 2014 #28
Nope. I am interested in telling others you are not worth their time. Big difference. nt stevenleser Jun 2014 #29
If you say so! I'm stepping away from this interaction, myself! Romulox Jun 2014 #30
That's because a big talk is only necessary when you're attempting to refute plain reality. Romulox Jun 2014 #26
I agree. He has no good choices. I'm for staying out of it, but lets not pretend that's a good stevenleser Jun 2014 #20
I want absolutely to stay completely out of Iraq now, but .......... marmar Jun 2014 #23
 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
1. Apparently its Obama's responsibility to solve a 1500 year old conflict...
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:14 AM
Jun 2014

...that has nothing to do with the United States.

That's what all this is really about isn't it?

 

phleshdef

(11,936 posts)
3. Well yea. Thats a given.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:25 AM
Jun 2014

But I'm just saying that everyone knew what would happen after Iraq was destabilized and we inevitably pulled out of there. The sectarian warfare would start again and now its supposedly Obama's fault that something so predictable occurred.

BeyondGeography

(39,278 posts)
4. The most obvious and disastrous mistake in my adult lifetime
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:27 AM
Jun 2014

was going to Iraq in 2003. Amazing how many people who should or could have known better and went along for that ride. For whatever reason, I always think of the condescending Michael Kelly, who called anti-war sentiment immoral, and died stupidly in a Humvee that drove off a bridge after being fired upon. I also will never forget young Barack Obama famously stepping up to a microphone and calling this a dumb war, not having the slightest idea of course that he would be the one to end it someday. It was a major factor in my decision to support him as a candidate, and that statement more than any other assures me that he won't get sucked into another quagmire here.

Iggo

(47,487 posts)
10. Replace "should or could have known better" with "did know better."
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:22 AM
Jun 2014

If you and I knew it was bullshit, you KNOW they knew it.

BeyondGeography

(39,278 posts)
12. Trying to be charitable
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:42 AM
Jun 2014

People had their reasons; personal relationships and career calculations entered into it. George Packer was another one...he wrote a whole book about it. His basic problem was he spent too much time talking to and bonding with an Iraqi exile at Harvard and felt he needed to support the war to support his friend. He would probably disagree with that assessment but that's the way it came off.

Iggo

(47,487 posts)
14. Charitable. Good word. I get that.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:16 PM
Jun 2014

I'm still waiting for someone to say "I fucked up" instead of "I was misled."

That'll go a loooong way.

 
6. I am so glad...
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:39 AM
Jun 2014

I am so glad that Obama is in charge instead of Cheney-Bush, McCain-Palin or Romney-Ryan!! It amazes me that a person of Obama's quality and character could rise to the top of the American political cesspool!

dawg

(10,609 posts)
7. He's in a tough spot.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:42 AM
Jun 2014

I would not support a full-scale reoccupation of Iraq. But I'm pretty much willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt for anything he decides to do short of that. There is no easy answer here.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
8. that's fine and good that you have sympathy
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 10:50 AM
Jun 2014

. . . but it's not a sentiment that I'd extend to judgment of his actions right now.

The reason that he's finding himself in the position of responding with military assistance has everything to do with the way he neglected to repudiate several of the Bushian justifications for remaining militarily engaged in Iraq.

One is his insistence that there's some sort of terror war to defend the U.S. against that threatens to spring out of Iraq and attack the U.S. or our 'interests'. I'm straining to remember where, in the decade we've been meddling militarily in Iraq, did any Iraqis come to the U.S. and attempt to attack us?

It's a ludicrous excuse for insisting that he has a military prerogative in Iraq, and its ignorant of the fact that our military presence and activity in Iraq actually fuels and fosters terrorists. It's right there in Bush's 2006 National Intelligence Report.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April 2006, was the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by U.S. intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and it represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, "Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement," cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

If you just take Pres. Obama's recent decision to send 300 U.S. military advisers to assist Iraqis in directing attacks against Iraqi targets, you can see the folly rising, yet again, where our military interference is just going to be a recruiting tool for whatever forces are resisting that Potemkin of democracy in Baghdad. The predictable effect will be the U.S. ownership, in Iraqis eyes, of any objectionable assault we had a hand in which kills innocent Iraqis.

The other thing the President has done is put the introduction of the military forces assisting the Iraqi army into operation well before there's even a promise from the Iraqi government we're defending to effect the political reconciliation that Bush first demanded and then completely let go.

The President himself said that no military action would be forthcoming without that political rapprochement, but here we are, advantaging just one side of the political divide militarily with our military advisers and weaponry; our military efforts that he ordered threatening Iraqis, pointed right at Maliki's political opposition at the same time he's calling for reconciliation.

The 2002 AUMF hasn't been repealed, so President Obama, by declaring some right under that AUMF to stage air attacks into Iraq if he deems it appropriate is just a U.S. gun pointed at any resisting Iraqi's head; all the while pressing for political concessions standing beside the government that has refused to accommodate that opposition politically.

It's the same type of military imperialism which had Iraqis voting for their leadership with the U.S. guns pointed directly at the Shiite-dominated regime's political opposition.

Anyone who believes that the Iraqi army can precisely target just the bad guys and leave the Iraqi population safe, hasn't been watching the Maliki regime as it prosecutes it military force against rival population centers. This isn't something that our military has any business enabling, and I don't believe the president is being realistic about the dangerous blowback to Iraqis and others that is inevitable from our military interference.

What do we do if political rapprochement fails? If there is some agreement will U.S. forces be sent back to Iraq to 'watch over' elections again?

Accepting Bush's 'terror' rationale for remaining militarily engaged in Iraq and adopting it is the president's responsibility and he should be held accountable for that, not sympathized with.

Accepting the notion that our military can aid ANY political goal inside Iraq without proving counterproductive and provocative is Pres. Obama's responsibility and he should be held accountable for that, not sympathized with.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
9. I don't agree with him. I have sympathy for his having been handed a shit sandwich.
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:18 AM
Jun 2014

and I've posted many times about how the war on terrorism fuels... terrorism. that's a given.

but I'm very amused by your post considering the number of times you've lit into me for criticizing president on fp.

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
11. I've been criticizing Obama on Iraq since before he was elected
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:31 AM
Jun 2014

. . . and I've criticized you when I think your notions are wrong.

. . . here's where most of my opposition to U.S. in Iraq (including president Obama) is recorded: http://www.opednews.com/author/author176.html

That's yet another curious emotion (amusement) without any substantive purpose in the debate other than defending your empathy. I'm glad you sympathize, but it's just not relevant to the debate, what you feel for the president personally; and, as you can see from my opposition of a man that I also like personally, it's not a factor at all in my analysis of what he's done in Iraq.


"no matter what Obama does regarding Iraq"

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
13. But you support an Iraq War Yes Voter with great abandon....
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 11:56 AM
Jun 2014

funny how that works. Many Democrats voted no. She voted Yes. Funny, in that piles of corpses for no good reason sort of way....

bigtree

(85,915 posts)
15. I've defended Hillary Clinton on many issues and I've defended her supporters from attacks here
Fri Jun 20, 2014, 12:19 PM
Jun 2014

. . . unfounded, viscous attacks from posters here who personalize their opposition to her supporters in vile and reprehensible ways. I'm always willing to stand beside those folks and express agreement with Hillary Clinton where I see fit.

I also offer up criticism here when I disagree with her.

What you've failed to recognize is that I've not engaged in ANY campaign for the presidency on behalf of ANY candidate. You're conflating defenses of what I believe is right or wrong with some campaign effort. That's your own cynical view of posters here, and, in my case, you're dead wrong.

Hillary Clinton was my third choice in the last presidential primary, Obama the fourth. I'm not going to take the time to explain the choices we face in presidential contests, but I don't believe Pres. Mccain, or Pres. Romney, or Pres. Cruz would be an acceptable substitute for our Democratic nominees.

I will be working for someone other than Hillary in the next primary. That's what 'support' is, not defending her against ignorant nonsense on this board which is presented as fact.

Think of what the standard you've used in judging me here means. You apparently expect folks posting here to put up only those threads and posts defending their choice for president? That's just a projection of your own inability to separate these issues we discuss from some campaign somewhere. I'm not responsible for that.

I've been consistent on Iraq, and I don't believe any support I've had in the past for any presidential choice contradicts that.

Response to cali (Original post)

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
21. no, it's not. It's bush's war. and your proclamation comes void of explanation of any kind
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 09:42 AM
Jun 2014

making it intellectually, uh, crud.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
24. "Intellectually crud" is an apt description of that post.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:08 AM
Jun 2014

There is no limit to the contortions that person will twist themselves into in order to attack President Obama and most Democrats.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
28. Right. But you are most definitely interested in dialoguing *ABOUT* me.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 08:19 PM
Jun 2014

You know that hate isn't the opposite of love, right? It's indifference.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
26. That's because a big talk is only necessary when you're attempting to refute plain reality.
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 03:32 PM
Jun 2014

It's an "explanation", and excuse. The reality is that President Obama is ordering us back into Iraq.

All the rest is just the blah blah blah that supposedly makes it OK.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
20. I agree. He has no good choices. I'm for staying out of it, but lets not pretend that's a good
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 09:40 AM
Jun 2014

choice.

marmar

(76,982 posts)
23. I want absolutely to stay completely out of Iraq now, but ..........
Sat Jun 21, 2014, 09:54 AM
Jun 2014

...... I really do feel for him on this one. Some pundit or observer noted that Bush "opened the gates of hell" when he invaded Iraq. That much is clear. And it's a mess that Obama and presidents yet-to-be elected are stuck with.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No matter what Obama does...