DC's NeoCons and Mainstream Media blame President Obama for Their OWN Iraq Failures....Robert Parry
Last edited Fri Jun 13, 2014, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)
(This is really an interesting read--my snips don't do it justice)
Published on Thursday, June 12, 2014 by Consortium News
As Islamic militants gain ground in Iraq, Official Washingtons neocons and the mainstream media are blaming President Obama for ending the U.S. military occupation, but they ignore their own role in destabilizing Iraq with the 2003 invasion
by Robert Parry
The Unsuccessful Surges
It should now be clear that neither surge was successful in altering the strategic arc of those two conflicts. At best, one could say that the military surges paid for by about 1,000 U.S. military deaths each and many tens of billions of dollars bought time for Bush and his neocon advisers to depart the government before the ultimate failures of their war polices became obvious, a decent interval that now has enabled these war architects to reframe the narrative and shift the blame to Obama.
The new narrative, which you can find across the media spectrum, is that Obama is to blame for the unfolding disaster in Iraq because he didnt insist on continuing the U.S. military occupation indefinitely. Hes also being blamed for the spread of Islamic militancy in Syria because he resisted demands from Official Washingtons opinion leaders for a major U.S. intervention aimed at overthrowing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Thus, the same U.S. news media that fumes over speculation that Russia may somehow be aiding separatists in eastern Ukraine and sputters about Moscows violations of international law has been openly lusting for an expanded U.S. military intervention in Syria in clear violation of international law.
Though U.S. assistance to Syrian rebels has so far been limited to light arms and non-lethal supplies, U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have been the principal supporters of radical Sunni jihadists who have flocked from around the Middle East to wage war against Syrias government, which is run by Assad, an Alawite, an offshoot of Shiite Islam.
Regarding Syria, Official Washingtons narrative is that if only Obama had intervened earlier in support of moderate rebels or if he had launched a full-scale bombing campaign last summer as he threatened, everything would have worked out just wonderfully Assad would be gone and moderates would be governing Syria.
The fact that none of the U.S. interventions in the Middle East have had such a happy ending doesnt deter this latest group think on Syria.
Besides the bloody examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is the case of Libya where Obama acceded to the demands of his war hawks, including Secretary Clinton and now-Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power. He committed U.S. air power to remove Muammar Gaddafi (who was later captured and murdered), only to see Libya descend into chaos, violence that has fed Islamic radicalism (including the lethal attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in 2012) and has spread to Mali and other nearby African countries.
Obamas Real Failure
If Obama is to be criticized for his handling of the Middle East, it would make more sense to excoriate him for not making a clean break with the neocon strategies of the Bush years and for not purging the U.S. government of hawks who are too eager to use military force.
Rather than adopt realistic approaches toward achieving political solutions, Obama has often caved in when confronted with pressure from Official Washingtons still influential neocons and the mainstream media that follows their lead.
For instance, Obama could accept help from Iran and Russia in achieving a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war but that would require him getting down off his high horse about how Assad must go. This months Syrian elections despite their shortcomings showed that Assad retains significant public support from the Alawites, Shiites, Christians, secularists, and even some Sunnis.
But a workable peace negotiation also would require Obama to acknowledge that Shiite-ruled Iran has legitimate interests in the region, and he might have to shake hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the current bete noire of all the smart people in Washington.
Rather than dealing with the real world where the United States might have to settle for the best of the worst options, there are signs that Obama is again falling in line with the preferred neocon strategy of expanded U.S. military assistance to Syrias supposedly moderate opposition, thus widening and prolonging the civil war and resulting in more chaos and death.
MORE AT:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/12-2