New York Times: Obama’s failures in Iraq

| September 24, 2012

Of course, Michael Gordon (in an article adapted from his book “The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama”) in the New York Times falls short of mentioning the real reasons for the failures of leaving a stable government in Iraq, namely a pre-announced time line for withdrawal, but he does finally get around to mentioning that Iraq isn’t the big success that the Obama Campaign likes to wave in front of us to distract from the other reasons he shouldn’t be allowed to continue as the President;

White House officials portray their exit strategy as a success, asserting that the number of civilian fatalities in Iraq is low compared with 2006, when the war was at its height. Politics, not violence, has become the principal means for Iraqis to resolve their differences, they say. “Recent news coverage of Iraq would suggest that as our troops departed, American influence went with them and our administration shifted its focus away from Iraq,” Antony Blinken, the national security adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said in a speech in March. “The fact is, our engagements have increased.”

To many Iraqis, the United States’ influence is greatly diminished. “American policy is very weak,” observed Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff to Massoud Barzani, the president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. “It is not clear to us how they have defined their interests in Iraq,” Mr. Hussein said. “They are picking events and reacting on the basis of events. That is the policy.”

Since this administration sees the answer to the future of Iraq as political rather than one of security, their solution to everything is installing puppets throughout the government that will be beholden to the US kingmakers like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Isn’t that how we ended up with Hamid Karzai and his corrupt government in Afghanistan? Afghans should take notes from this article and decide who they want to plan their future. Would it be “Hard Wood” Joe Biden or Paul Ryan they trust more?

Category: Terror War

11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hondo

Jonn: I really wish you hadn’t used the phrase “hard wood” in the same sentence as the name “Joe Biden”. Even ouzo or soju with the “extra” ingredients isn’t strong enough mind-bleach to take care of that mental image.

Hondo

Jonn, I knew the reference. But the original article I saw didn’t phrase it quite the same way. (smile)

Jabatam

This is bullshit! I’ve kept in contact with one of my terps from back in the day and, when I asked him how things were since the US left, he told me they were very bad…worse than when we were there. I don’t know where the puppets in the White House are receiving their intel from but it certainly isn’t the civilians IN Iraq

USMCE8Ret12

This is an interesting article, but my instincts tell me that the Iraqi’s are not prepared to take on the security requirements because there is a lack of leadership and cohesion in the government – always has been that way and always will. The Arab culture there would prefer to have things fixed for them instead of reaching a solution for themselves. It’s been a catch 22 for years. Even with an “American” solution, they won’t accept it because of their cultural beliefs. Iraq is a broken toy and will always be that way, whether we are there or not.

nucsnipe

OT but Small Dead Animals reporting Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan in ICU
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/021404.html

Twist

To play the devils advocate here, wasn’t the Administration negotiating to keep us in Iraq longer but it fell through after we refused to allow our Service Members to be tried in Iraqi courts?

UpNorth

@#4, the puppets in the White House are getting their intel from the same sources that told them the uprisings in the Middle East are the result of the movie trailer. Or, they’re pulling it out of their asses. Wait, I just repeated myself.

AndyN

@7 – The treaty setting the timeline for withdrawal and the limited ongoing troop presence was negotiated and signed in 2008. To the extent that the withdrawal of troops is the cause of current problems, that was a situation Obama inherited from Bush 43. Believing that the deterioration of the situation as the withdrawal date approached was obvious and a change of course was needed, and blaming the Obama foreign policy team’s ineptitude for not being able to negotiate that change of course is probably legitimate.

Twist

@9-I was there when that all went down. We were kicking in doors in 2008 and then in the summer of 2009 we had to shut down our COP and move onto a FOB. We had to coordinate with the IA in order to patrol. We would have to meet them at the gate. 9 times out of 10 we waited an hour, they didn’t show up, and we would go back on the FOB. I spent a week just staring at the ceiling, not patrolling, and going nuts. The only thing we really did was evac casualties from Camp Ashraf when the IA stormed it 2009.

Devtun

NYT must have forgotten they are in Obama protection mode. Drudge Report was pretty shocked that the Grey Lady would run anything even remotely controversial of our dear Maobama.