What’s worse: Launching a disastrous military campaign under false pretenses to achieve goals you wrongly believe are attainable? Or launching a disastrous military campaign you know is doomed in order to help your party win an election?
I ask in light of today’s New York Times story about how President Obama asked the CIA a while back whether arming rebel forces – pretty much the agency’s signature strategy — had ever worked in the past.
He was told that it almost never has.
But then in June, once the political pressure for intervention in Syria got too great, he did just that — sending weapons to rebels fighting the Syrian military.
Yes: He knew better, but he did it anyway.
Political (and media) pressure was also a major factor behind last month’s shifting of those gun-running efforts to counter the Islamic State, instead of the Syrian military – and the launch of ineffective if not counter-productive strikes by U.S. planes and missiles.
Obama could have leveled with the American public and said: Look, there’s not much we can do to help over there. Pretty much everything my best people have come up with only makes things worse. If there’s a solution at all, it’s for the Saudis and the Iranians and the Turks to make this their problem.
But that probably would have been cast by the elite media — not to mention Fox News — as surrender, costing the Democrats another few House and Senate races.
So it wasn’t even a possibility.
As it happens, Syria is hardly the first or most significant place Obama has used his power as Commander-in-Chief in ways that get people slaughtered, even though he knew better, primarily for political purposes.
Obama’s biggest such decision killed a lot of American servicemembers who he sent to fight and die in Afghanistan.
During his 2008 presidential campaign, which was marked by his opposition to the war in Iraq, then-Senator Obama’s vow to re-engage in Afghanistan was seen by many as a ploy to avoid being cast as a dove, first by Hillary Clinton and then by John McCain.
What’s not clear to this day is precisely when Obama knew better; when he realized that the war in Afghanistan was hopeless.
By inauguration time, that conclusion seemed fairly obvious to many foreign-policy watchers. So why not him?
But one month into his presidency, Obama announced he was sending more troops there – 30,000, as it would turn out. Despite the obvious lack of what he himself had frequently described as a must — an exit strategy — he increased the number of troops in Afghanistan by 50 percent. And the monthly death tolls shot up.
Over 1,600 American servicemembers have died in Afghanistan since the summer of 2009 — well over half of all the dead during the entire war – along with countless Afghans.
There were public signs in November 2009 that Obama was “rethinking” his plan. David Sanger, in his book Confront and Conceal, wrote that Obama actually began a “reassessment of whether the war was as necessary as he first believed” even earlier, in the summer of 2009. (At an off-the-record June 2009 dinner with historians the “main point” his guests tried to make was “that pursuit of war in Afghanistan would be for him what Vietnam was to Lyndon Johnson,” Garry Wills wrote later.)
And according to Sanger’s murky sources, the recognition that things were hopeless came at the latest by June 2011.
But it wasn’t for three more long years — until this May — that Obama finally announced U.S. troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2016.
Which brings us to the question I raised at the top.
George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq sent vastly more people to their deaths than anything Obama did – nearly 5,000 U.S. servicemembers, plus over 100,000 Iraqi civilians – and left as many as half a million U.S. servicemembers wounded or otherwise permanently damaged.
(Obama’s latest doomed-to-fail show of force explicitly keeps U.S. servicemembers out of harm’s way. )
But Bush at least thought the war in Iraq would do some good.
He was incredibly wrong, mind you. He was both delusional — and actively manipulated by neocons like Dick Cheney (who believe the application of American power is always and inherently a good thing). He intentionally misled the public about his real reasons for going to war (the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an excuse, not a reason; there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction). His eventual goal was both unachievable (a sudden flowering of pro-Western democracy in the Middle East) and perverse (American control of Iraqi oil fields). His methods (firing all the Baathists; trying to install a corrupt puppet) were spectacularly misguided. Much of the rest of his presidency was consumed with sectarian warfare in Iraq and new lies to cover up the old ones at home. And the end result was a massive human rights catastrophe, including torture of U.S. detainees, a refugee crisis, mass casualties, social disorder and – finally – the Islamic State.
Bush also certainly saw – and exploited — the political upside of being a war president.
But he didn’t let loose the dogs of war simply because his political operatives told him it would poll well.
Photo: Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images
Let’s all act like 9/11 happened. Let’s consider it relevant material, and point it out. Let’s act like it’s worthy of investigation, and perhaps prosecution. Let’s act like we follow the Constitution. Let’s act like we had a false pointer to begin with, and point out that that was obvious. Let’s act like we’re the military! Let’s act like the truth isn’t obvious, and accept that as fact.
Yes. And as that cookie cutting, useful template that can be utilized successfully to project the establishment’s will continues to be our president we will continue to plaintively agree with everything for absolutely no reason.
An unfortunate consequence of the byproduct of the racism that seems to be within the establishment itself is that episodes of injustice appear self-evident to citizens in Ferguson, Missouri. Perhaps a conflict of interest abides within.
Sadly, Democrats who pursue disastrous policies believing it will help their party politically get creamed in the next election. Americans who might have supported them are too demoralized.
You can’t call O-man wishy-washy; he always does what the Repos want.
No actual leader would ever say such a thing, especially if it were true.
President Reagan IGNORED Aids until 20,849 Americans had already died. But please tell me how Obama’s immediate response to 3 Ebola cases is has been inadequate??
So THAT’D Be Serially, “Doing $tupid $hit” ?!
A good summary of the f**ked up mess in the Middle East:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175908/tomgram%3A_peter_van_buren%2C_seven_bad_endings_to_the_new_war_in_the_middle_east/
Yeah, I saw the article at Unz Review, here’s the comment I left:
The thinking behind this article is an EPIC FAIL.
A root problem of endless conflict in the middle east has been, other than history of western meddling to present, arbitrary, artificial borders.
Propping up those borders insure the underlying ethnic strife will be perpetual, short of annihilating artificially created minorities; for instance the Kurds being a minority in four nations only because a majority of Kurds have not been allowed to unify across artificial borders.
It follows, any ‘minority rights’ for Kurds, mandated under international law, is Orwell’s newspeak for ‘minority of rights’ where the Turks, for instance, have historically suppressed Kurdish language, history and culture. What Van Buren proposes be sustained appears to be a clone of the American policy of Manifest Destiny, where the Kurds are to be forever confined to what amount to Indian reservations that see their language die off. Except the Kurds are still a long way from anything like the surrender of Geronimo.
So, who is Peter Van Buren to say the Kurds should not exercise their full right to self determination? Another plenipotentiary emissary of a western philosophy that has piled failed thinking on top of failed policies throughout modern history? Van Buren would propose Kurds and Turks continue killing each other for another 100 years, on top of 100 years already. Artificial borders don’t work and minority rights within a larger framework of multiculturalism is an utterly failed social phenomena.
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/10/09/liberals/
^ ‘Liberals’ is a direct to the point satire. Give someone like Van Buren a policy platform, or give a chimp a loaded AK 47, and the outcomes are not dissimilar, i.e. circumstance of violent lunacy. Propping up artificial borders is like piling pressure on a fault line. Ultimately it is why the Kurds and Turks are at war and is a destabilizing geopolitical factor in its own context. Too bad it would injure the ego of Erdogan and his allied sponsors of ‘state terrorism’ to admit the Kurds have a legitimate grief…
How does what is the current U.S. military policy in Iraq and Syria fighting I.S. figure into the statement made by Gen. Wesley Clark regarding the memo he was handed while visiting The Pentagon a few weeks after 9/11 that said, “The United States plans to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria and finally Iran.”:?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
Doesn’t this “plan” also reflect the Zionist Israeli plan for “Greater Israel” (The Yinon Plan):
According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in a 2011 Global Research article, The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East:
“[The Yinon plan] is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.”
And now we have the NATO ally Turkey bombing the Kurds who are fighting I.S. along with U.S. airstrikes??
Michael J. Totten has a good analysis of this quagmire at World Affairs Journal.
I would merely note a cynical ploy to exploit the Kurds legitimate aspiring to self-determination would be no surprise. I certainly any intention to allow a large portion of Turkey, with its largest of the so-called Kurdish ‘minorities’ to play in any equation of a Kurdish state…
What should be considered is, there are multiple players and agendas at cross purposes stirring the pot. Almost certainly the Pentagon dinosaurs wish Obama to fail (not that he’d need much help) from a religious right point of view, Obama has some premier neo-liberal world class killers are close to him (Susan Rice, Sam Power) who never encountered a ‘humanitarian intervention’ they didn’t approve of, John Brennan is likely little more than a CIA special activities division ‘presidential baby-sitter’ looking after the interests of Chevron & friends… for a start.
Throw in the House of Saud is practically an al-Qaida regime that not only beheads but crucifies as a matter of state policy, not only fostered (with Turkey’s willing help) the Islamic State and Iran’s modern history is largely a corrupt fight between two families battling for control, Russia and China’s geopolitical interests; all stirred into modern corporate board neo-colonialism pulling strings for instant gratification and super-imposed on the regions nations own agendas and political pressures and you have today’s middle east.
Somehow I expect the only ‘grand plan’ that will work out is the Pentagon aligned millions of ‘Christian State’ adherents who pray every day for literal Armageddon to see the return of Jesus, which they actually believe will happen if enough blood is spilled in the middle east
I wish I could deliver a better forecast, but that’s what is in the intelligence tea leaves
^ typo correction ‘I certainly DOUBT any intention to allow a large portion of Turkey…’
Like Bush, who ran in his first election campaigning for “a more humble foreign policy” and then implemented an arrogant one after surrounding himself with neocons, Obama surrounded himself with what was called the “nest of hawks” at the beginning of his Administration despite his pledge to appoint people with very divergent views. Most of his advisers have been very hawkish, and he has never had a single significant official in the foreign policy/national security arena who was peace oriented.
Presidents have a much more limited view of the world than people on the outside. Their nominations are critical, because they won’t directly hear from too many other than their top officials. If all their advisers tell them to take military action, it seems like the only alternative unless there is a major groundswell against it as there was when he initially proposed intervention in Syria.
What we also see with Obama is a non-veteran seen as too peace-oriented by many in the establishment who wants to prove he is “tough” – willing to kill people regardless of whether it makes sense. He and Michelle have steadily surrounded themselves with military people to prove his legitimacy as President of the world’s greatest purveyor of violence.
The creep kissed a person who had contracted ebola. I hope…..
@Dan Froomkin:
What about these stories?
From 2007:
The Redirection
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection
U.S. has secretly provided arms training to Syria rebels since 2012
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622
See the section, “ISIS and the campaign against Syria” in this piece:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/09/airi-s09.html
See this piece from 2011:
Secret US-NATO Training & Support Camp to Oust Current Syrian President
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/11/21/bfp-exclusive-syria-secret-us-nato-training-support-camp-to-oust-current-syrian-president/
Seems to me that there are just too many darn “secrets” in the United States. Just watching the story of the whistleblower Sybil Edmonds in her documentary, “Kill the Messenger” where all the “State Secrets Privilege” court rulings were divulged was a major wake up call for me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT4pgoc6-0M
And now that I think about it there was quite a bit of revealing information about Turkey, espionage and the U.S. Congress in that documentary.
If the MSM is not clamoring (and they are obviously NOT), to uncover and expose all the dirty “secrets” to the American people then there is ZERO possibility of having a fully functioning Democracy.
Which is probably the whole point, eh?
Unfortunately, I don’t see any course change in the future (unless it’s for the worse) when the next president, whether it be Billary or some idiot Republican, takes office.It’s going to get worse, before it gets better, if indeed it ever does get better.
Mr. Froomkin
“…..Pretty much everything my best people have come up with only makes things worse. If there’s a solution at all, it’s for the Saudis and the Iranians and the Turks to make this their problem……Syria is hardly the first or most significant place Obama has used his power as Commander-in-Chief in ways that get people slaughtered, even though he knew better, primarily for political purposes……”
So getting people “slaughtered” is not the problem – as long as someone else does the slaughtering. It’s already clear that the Saudis, Syrians (Assad), Iranians, Turks, Lebanese, Russia, and Qatar have already made Syria “their problem” with very little US interference. About 200,000 people have been killed in Syria with virtually no US interference until recently – all because Syrians demanded political rights from the Assad government. Once the war started, regional geopolitics took over. The slaughtering in Syria, Congo, Eastern Ukraine, Rwanda, Sudan (China’s blood for oil program), Sri Lanka is simply OK as long as the US isn’t involved.
This pretty much defines radical left philosophy. It’s not about civilians dying or being displaced, human rights, political rights, democracy, chemical weapons or torture. It’s about corralling the foreign policy of the US (and Israel) – the two most dangerous countries in the world. Two thousand people were “slaughtered” in Gaza using American made bombs, jets, missiles and intelligence. That is an outrage at the Intercept. About 200,000 have been “slaughtered” in Syria using Russian weapons, Hezbollah fighters and Iranian military help (along with support for the various rebels and terrorists by other Middle East countries). Ho hum – someone else’s problem.
One hundred thousand civilians were “slaughtered” in Iraq, “……And the end result was a massive human rights catastrophe, including torture of U.S. detainees, a refugee crisis, mass casualties, social disorder and – finally – the Islamic State…….”. That’s an outrage at the Intercept – ho hum.
Craig, I wish you would stop saying things like “radical left philosophy.” You got your ass handed to you by sillyputty on this topic of labeling a few days ago. And there’s nothing wrong with getting your ass handed to you – as long as you take something away from the experience, other than a bruised ego.
Really, others in these threads have accused you of being a “troll,” or a “state operative” but I always disagreed and assumed you were just a true believer whose core beliefs had never been challenged before. Now I’m starting to wonder if you just agitate in these threads for the sport of it. That would be tiresome.
I looked up the word “troll” and Craig’s post could very well fit the description. All of the killing and chaos is an outrage and has been stated so in numerous articles here at “The Intercept”. Nobody can “make” anyone else do or think anything.Part of the purpose of trolling is to provoke a response which he did. This takes the conversation down rabbit trails. What I wonder is why come here if you have such disdain for the reporting, Craig?
“…..What I wonder is why come here if you have such disdain for the reporting, Craig?…..”
I don’t have a disdain for the reporters or what they write, but their narrow political focus. Another good question might be what do you fear in an alternate viewpoint??
Dabney
“……Craig, I wish you would stop saying things like “radical left philosophy.” You got your ass handed to you by sillyputty on this topic of labeling a few days ago…..”
Sorry Dabney. I’m going to continue to label as I see fit……but thanks for the advice.
Hassan Rouhani called the airstrikes on ISIS “a form of theater.”
I actually feel sorry for Obama. I think he’s basically a good person that means well, but he’s trapped within this horrible behemoth system of government we have in place, which is pushed and pulled by all these special interests, and the best he can do is try to choose between lesser evils. Doing “the right thing” is probably rarely even an option.
If that’s the case, how about fessing up. Tell the people who elected him just why it is he hasn’t been able to fulfill his promises. But nooooo. Give good speeches and everything will turn out great. We’ve all met people like president Obama who just can’t understand why everyone else can’t see the validity of their views and act accordingly. “I said it therefore it should be done”
@jgreen7801
“Fessing up?” The Republicans would be feasting on his carcass in seconds. Admitting mistakes is showing weakness and that gets you killed in DC.
I want ’em all to fess up. Not just Dems but Reps too.
“…..“Fessing up?” The Republicans would be feasting on his carcass in seconds. Admitting mistakes is showing weakness and that gets you killed in DC……”
And in the Middle East Dabney – like his red line in Syria. I like Obama and I think he is fundamentally a good guy, but he became President because he is a world class politician. He is not trapped at all. He became President learning to play the system by choice. The buck stops in his office.
>”But he didn’t let loose the dogs of war simply because his political operatives told him it would poll well.”
Lies, damned lies and statistics. .. & two wrongs don’t make it right, Dan.
*My guess is a.) Obama is a dog of the entire Iraq war (note. he calls it ‘peace’) and b.) if his ‘political operatives’ told him it would ‘poll well’ … then Obama desperately needs some new political operatives (e.g. even ‘Obama Girl’ has turned against him!).
Mr. Froomkin correctly states that the aggression in Syria ordered by President Obama has a domestic component. I believe that the “domestic component” for every aggressive order of every recent President has been and will be more significant than he seems to think.
@didi – you want to put a name on that “domestic component?”
A better statement on my part would have been “for domestic political consumption”.
You mean “….We the People…..”?
I’m kinda confused. Isn’t there another Intercept article by Maz Hussain referring to Saddam’s WOMD posted yesterday – and here Dan Froomkin is saying these weapons didn’t exist? Do you Intercept guys keep in touch with each other? Also, as I mentioned in the comments thread, there was a nuclear weapons program in Iraq; Kurt Pitzer wrote more about that in “Bomb In My Garden.”
Did you read that article, Dabney? These WMDs were known about pre Iraq war I. They had nothing to do with Iraq war II’s justifications.
Oh OK. You’re probably right. I didn’t start paying attention to politics until recently. Thanks.
Dan, Oscar Wilde’s maxim “Truth is seldom pure and never simple” should be engraved on whatever tool it is today’s writers employ. Pinning the rise of the so-called Islamic State on Bush, however tempting, is not precisely accurate. Why not give Bush/Obama a 50/50 even share? If it were Bush prepared the ground in Iraq, it was Obama sowed the field with his moves to undermine Assad in Syria.
The New York Times piece smells to high heaven of a CIA-CYA (cover your ass) story, for which the agency is famous and the Times has a long history of CIA cooperation (according to Carl Bernstein’s excellent reporting.)
What is the date of this report delivered to Obama? The Times story doesn’t say, but as the first study was ‘commissioned’ in 2012, quite clearly Obama’s CIA Director Petraeus, by time of report delivery, had already opened the pipeline of arms to the so-called ‘rebels’ via the Saudis’ Bandar bin Sultan.
[Bandar bin Sultan’s] “return in July 2012, alongside former CIA Director David Petraeus, was his final bet on the success of his political future. Bandar had been bold enough to invest all his cards, including al-Qaeda, to win the deal of his life by overthrowing the Syrian regime”
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/19443
Interesting how al Qaida appears to be a joint CIA-Saudi intelligence tool (stooge) in the Arab assessment of where the overthrow of Assad had gone terribly wrong.
Taking a New York Times article at face value is practically asking the agency to spoon feed you a cover (your ass) story-
When I hear people claiming it’s our humanitarian duty to intervene in Syria and Iraq, my gut reaction is why there? What about all the other blood baths that are taking place and have happened recently in Africa(several countries there), Indonesia, the native Amazonians by the illegal miners and loggers. What makes the middle east so important(oil) that needs all our attention. Perhaps if we weren’t already engaged in a perpetual global war it might be more plausible. We have selective standards for what constitutes a necessary intervention. I guess if you’re black, or asian, or native american you’re SOL but perhaps middle easterners are close enough to white. oh and they got oil.
“……We have selective standards for what constitutes a necessary intervention. I guess if you’re black, or asian, or native american you’re SOL but perhaps middle easterners are close enough to white. oh and they got oil……”
It might be the most important economic center in the world. It has nothing to do with race.
Mr Froomkin,
I hope you are joking because this not even a typical anti US or anti Obama Intercept article. This is just an ignorant opinion. The commander in chief does not base his decisions solely on the CIA advise. He (or hopefully she soon) has to ponder the public, the military, the allies views and many other geopolitical factors when deciding military matters. President Obama and many other governments in the area believed that some Syrian rebels have the right to defend themselves against an oppressive regime that probably used chemical weapons against its own people. Moreover, if sending weapons to the rebels has not worked, how come the Syrian military has not crushed them?
Your idea on how President Obama should have approached the crisis is quite silly.
“If there’s a solution at all, it’s for the Saudis and the Iranians and the Turks to make this their problem”
This is the quote from an Intercept contributor! An online media whose core ideas are the truth and the bashing of US foreign policy because according to the contributors it has caused more harm than good in the Middle East. Yet, the solution provided by Mr Froomkin for the crisis in Syria and Iraq is to let it get worse, let more refugees run away to Turkey or to the Kurdish areas, let ISIL continue it killing spree. That is the leadership they expect from the President of the most powerful country in the world!!!
Mr. Froomkin, how many refugees have left Syria? How many of them have crossed to Turkey in October, 2014?
Any individual with a minimum level of decency would agree that when 2,5 million individuals become refugees and more than 100,000 individuals run away from their land in three days it is not a Saudi or Turkish or Iranian problem. This is a worldwide problem. And for you to suggest that the United States of America does not even have a slight moral responsibility to intervene in an area it has frankly abused for the last 60 years is shocking. Would you feel more comfortable if the Mosul dam was still under ISIS control? Would you feel even more comfortable if ISIS has taken over Mount Sinjar? About Kobane? Well, I am sure you are disappointed knowing that the “ineffective” air strikes have helped the Kurds taking over the Mosul dam, breaking Sinjar siege to save thousands of Yazidis and preventing ISIL from taking Kobane.
It is very cavalier for you to mention the number of dead American soldiers in Afghanistan without even acknowledging the small but still very crucial improvements that have been done in that country. NONE of them would have been possible without the US intervention. I let you tell your readers how many Afghans have returned to their land after the US intervention, how many Afghans have access to health care, and education and how many Afghan journalists, writers, politicians, artists enjoy a small but an available degree of freedom they never had under the Taliban.
Whether the Democrats win or lose, many of us sleep better whenever more barbaric ISIL fighters are killed because it means more women and children have a better hope to avoid the shameful life in a refugee camp, which you should visit in Turkey as you suggest it is that country’s problem.
And for you to suggest that the United States of America does not even have a slight moral responsibility to intervene in an area it has frankly abused for the last 60 years is shocking.
What is shocking is people who admit that we have been frankly abusing an area of the world for 60 years who still, after all that time and destruction wrought, think that more abuse will save the day.
You are the very definition of the fat, complacent, western hamster trundling along, day after day, on the wheel of authoritarian conquest.
Maybe you ought to join ISIL and fight for them as you seem very bothered that the US is bombing them.
“…think that more abuse will save the day.”
Please enlighten us! Who is getting abused when the US, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Iraq and many others bomb ISIL?
I would love to know who the abused are. President Assad, whose enemies are getting killed by US bombs? Iran, a Shia majority country? The Kurds who are taking back their controlled areas thanks to the bombing? The Iraqi government that specifically asks for military help? Or maybe the refugees who are running away from the killings and massacres of ISIL?
I am very impatient to know from you who the US is abusing now by killing those hardcore terrorists. Be specific please.
The aggressive and barbaric actions of the US is what made the creation of ISIL possible. Why would more of the same serve to solve the problem? You’re the one displaying monumental ignorance and stupidity.
avelna2001
“……The aggressive and barbaric actions of the US is what made the creation of ISIL possible…….”
That is a somewhat simplistic response. ISIS is filling a power vacuum in Syria and Iraq. In Syria, the Assad regime is fully responsible for the current civil war. Assad brutally crushed a movement by ordinary Syrians protesting promised political rights in their country. The civil war was initiated without any significant contribution from the US. In Iraq, the US unleashed a civil war by disposing of Saddam Hussein. Al-Qaeda in Iraq filled the vacuum in Iraq during the years of civil strife (until the surge). However, it was the Maliki government which marginalized Sunnis from the elected government thereby providing an opening for the return of al-Qaeda in Iraq (ISIS). Many disaffected Sunnis joined the ranks of the ISIS building its power. That’s why the US demanded the resignation of the Maliki government. Whether this new Shia government will successfully bring more Sunnis into the government probably will determine if the Sunnis will fight ISIS like they did during “the surge”.
So you should at least try to understand the background to the current situation in Syria and Iraq.
The meddling by the US going back decades has contributed significantly, if not overwhelmingly, to the current chaos in the ME. Why you would believe that more of the same would change anything for the better is ludicrous.
Can you be more specific? Fundamentalist groups similar to ISIL have existed hundreds of years in the ME. Moreover, there are many others in other areas around the world where US interventions have been close to none. ISIL became powerful thanks the chaos in Syria where the Obama administration has avoided extensive interventions until now. Therefore, unless you are more specific I can only assume you are not well informed about Middle Eastern politics and history. So, you just mindlessly follow the Intercept articles.
“That is a somewhat simplistic response.”
[Insert longwinded, unitentionally ironic statement afterward. These things pretty much write themselves after a while…}
“……[Insert longwinded, unitentionally ironic statement afterward. These things pretty much write themselves after a while…}…..”
There really is not much that can be explained in the Middle East without a long-winded explanation. If you see responses like avelna2001 which attempt to blame everything on the US (“…The meddling by the US going back decades has contributed significantly, if not overwhelmingly, to the current chaos in the ME…”), then you should be skeptical. Syria is a classic example.
“The civil war was initiated without any significant contribution from the US.”
That the public is aware of, perhaps. There are written accounts of Benghazi’s involvement in channeling weapons to the Syrian rebels, freedom fighters, or whatever label is correct this month. The CIA’s and Ambassador Stevens’ involvement with the smuggling may never be known, if there was smuggling at all. Everything involving our government has somehow become classified, even more so when it’s the military or CIA or NSA or FBI or ABC or DEF. The exception is when we are told something that shines a positive light on the regime,oh sorry, administration. I may come across as anti-American but if you knerw me you’d know otherwise. I want an America that’s honest in it’s dealings with it’s citizens and those of other nations. I want a nation that truly ascribes to the ideals put forth in our constitution. Yeah, I want a lot. It’s not money or power and definitely not world domination that I’m after though.
“……That the public is aware of, perhaps…..”
Perhaps, but until you can show otherwise, the involvement of the US in Syria has been minimal. Obama has been severely criticized by Saudi Arabia and other Arab States for being so slow to supply the rebels with weapons. Indeed, Syria (allegedly) crossed the “red line” after they were accused of using chemical weapons on a civilian population. The US had threatened to bomb Syria, but backed out making Putin look like an honest to goodness peacemaker (while at the same time protecting their interests in Syria).
In Syria, the problem lies with the Syrian regime which crushed a democracy movement simply to hold a monopoly on power in Syria.
Dan, I don’t think that was the goal internally, nor were they misguided. If you haven’t read it already I recommend Maz’s article Al Jazeera last year.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/2013567200437919.html
America has been attacking Iraq in one form or another for over two straight decades. Heads of state are explicitly calling for decades more. At what point do we stop calling the policies “a mistake”? The insurgency was anticipated by its architects. The sanctions regime put facts on the ground. If the goal is to maintain weak nationalism through a cycle of balkinization and destabilization of the region, Iraq policy seems more or less flush through each Administration.
Very good article Dan; I suppose we will never know the truth about so much that we should know about. Washington has gone mad.
Whether arming Syrian rebels “works out” depends on what one is working for, and it’s way past time to be thinking as if US policy “works” if it creates peace and stability. Obama told Tom Friedman, of all people, that it has “always been a fantasy” to think there could be “a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels”.to defeat Assad, and yet, because the US does not care if there are effective “secular” rebels, Obama and “senior White House officials have been directing a “cataract” of weaponry to jihadi militias for at least two years. That’s because what they are working for is a the destruction and fragmentation of the Syrian (and Iraqi) state and the creation of failed states that can offer no resistance to American or Israeli aggressions, and a zone of chaotic jihadi violence that can be presented as justifying Israeli intransigence and American military presence in the region. Thus, the aid given to the rebels has worked quite well, thank you. See analysis at: America, ISIS, and Syria: We have to bomb the jihadis in order to save them
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2014/09/america-isis-and-syria-we-have-to-bomb.html
“What’s worse: Launching a disastrous military campaign under false pretenses to achieve goals you wrongly believe are attainable? Or launching a disastrous military campaign you know is doomed in order to help your party win an election?”
I would say what’s worse is the network of corporatist/militarist rule that used both of these presidents like puppets by playing on their weaknesses.
This notion that the democrats and the republicans are oppositional to each other is just plain stupid.
It is especially ludicrous when seemingly intelligent people portray the war in Iraq as Bush and Cheney’s – as if Biden, Kerry, Clinton, and a majority of other democrats had little to do with making it happen.
Now we are supposed to pretend that Obama and the democrats are only warmongering because that will convince the voters to re-elect members of their brand of corruption.
“The voters made them do it” is the sorry explanation given in this excuse for reporting.
The last sentence of this dim-witted article says it all and it applies to Bush, Obama, and their corporate owned parties.
WTFU!
I shouldn’t post when pissed off.
My quotation marks were meant as a paraphrase, not a quote.
I apologize.
That makes me think Word Crimes, the new Weird Al video.
It is a tough situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I think in both Afganistan and Iraq the solution may be to leave a small force so the countries don’t get overrun, but at the same time you are limiting your exposure to American casualties.
This may mean sending in a large force first to clear out ISIS from Iraq and then drastically reducing but not 100% eliminating it. I doubt Obama will do that though. I bet the next Republican will do it though. Hillary Clinton (if she wins) would probably also do it. I doubt air power alone will have the outcome we want.
My concern is just that if we send weapons to moderate Sunni rebels, they will quickly end up in the hands of ISIS (in the same way many of the weapons we gave to Iraq ended up in the hands of ISIS after they overran the bases in Iraq).
Your perspective is part of the problem.
You obviously prefer to believe that the US has good intentions when it is abundantly clear that arrogance, avarice, and consumption are the priorities which are driving all of this corruption.
You are also ignoring the fact that “terrorists” like ISIS are made possible by the actions of the US corporate “government.”
The old song says, “America, America, god shed his grace on thee…” but to the capitalist/consumer culture of the US (and elsewhere) THAT “grace” is never enough.
As of this moment your link to Iraq Body Count — “over 100,000 Iraqi civilians” — is coming up ‘page not found’
Iraq Body Count and other counts of Iraqi deaths due to the war/occupation are addressed at the link below. It’s an informative read on the controversial methods used to document these counts.
Half a Million Deaths is a StatisticSlate: Joshua Keating
The politically charged question of how many Iraqis were killed as a result of the war that began in 2003 has been a tough one to pin down. Former U.S. CentCom Commander Gen. Tommy Franks famously claimed that “we don’t do body counts,” though U.S. military documents released by Wikileaks in 2010 contained records of more than 100,000 people killed in Iraq following the 2003 invasion. The independent group Iraq Body Count has documented between 114,973 and 126,121 civilian deaths since 2003. But not all deaths are recorded, and what about those killed not by direct violence but by other factors caused by the war? Efforts to measure these casualties have proven more controversial.
Joshua Keating Joshua Keating
The latest effort to measure the death toll is a paper published recently by a large team of researchers in the peer-reviewed online journal PLOS Medicine.
Wouldn’t that Iraqi body count include all the people who have been killed(since our withdrawal) and are killed now?It’s just a continuation.And I guarantee its way past those Frank numbers.
As far as Obomba,he obviously isn’t up to snuff,neither was the shrub.It’s the poison ivy league education by Zionists which has infected their minds(and just about every pol today) with the bogus vision and ideology of neocapitalism.
You should also add that most of the dead Iraqis are the result of sectarian warfare. It seems you would feel comfortable if they were all killed by the US Armed forces.
That’s a good example of why I referred to you as a jackass or some similar label. That sentence is how jackasses respond to information provided that they not only don’t like, but haven’t even bothered to read. If you open the link that I posted you will find multiple links within the article, and then more links inside of those links, which provide volumes of information. I personally didn’t write any of it or do the any of the work that Iraq Body Count or any of the other organizations who worked to find the numbers did. So you’ll need to speak with someone else about how “comfortable” or not they are with the numbers of deaths.
The reason you use this label against me, is simply because you are ignorant and unsophisticated. It is my greatest pleasure to show all readers how those who blindly support the Intercept articles lack basic analytic skills. When you state that “Iraqi deaths due to war/occupation” you mean ( I hope involuntarily) that the US forces being present at that time in Iraq were responsible for most if not all that violence. That is not factually truth ( according to the link you provided) whether you support or condemn the invasion of Iraq. So, before you share links online make sure you review them properly because readers with critical mindset will challenge you and you will again look stupid as your best defense is the use of obscenity.
Steb thinks that swearing is the badge of “ignorant and unsophisticated.” Steb thinks that swearing about mass murder and war crimes alleviates all of the guilt from those who are guilty of mass murder and war crimes.
Are you aware that the ignorant and unsophisticated Glenn Greenwald has been known to swear up a storm with the best of them? Maybe you’d do well to give up on pretending that you being called a jackass means anything other than you have earned the label of jackass due to your “ignorance and unsophistication, but mostly because of your dishonesty.
I read the the information in the links that I referred to, jackass, and they totally dismantle the bull shit you’re posting in reply.
Here’s a clue for you — and for “all readers” — if you’d like to know who is this conversation is being a dishonest jackass:
Who wrote the following? Was it Kitt? Or was it Steb?
“When you state that “Iraqi deaths due to war/occupation” you mean ( I hope involuntarily) that the US forces being present at that time in Iraq were responsible for most if not all that violence.”
Answer is — Steb.
That is how Steb finds “great pleasure.” He “show(s) all readers” what he’s made of by either outright lying or fabricating enough straw to build several straw people.
“If sectarian warfare is as unavoidable…we have no business trying to police that.”
Thank you for helping me presenting my point against Mr Greenwald and the Intercept staff. This is not your business, not Mr Greenwald’s business when 200,000 Syrians are killed, 2,4 million Syrians are refugees, and thousands are being massacred by ISIL. This is not an outrageous situation. Your indignation appears when the US bombs ISIL, saving Yazidis, Kurds and many others. It has been my view for awhile. You are not pro Muslim, pro Palestinian or pro Afghan. You actually do not care about them. You are just anti US, and you are patiently waiting for a US intervention to suddenly express your compassion for the civilian population that you have blatantly ignored. I do not believe the most powerful countries in the world need permission from a world governing body to stop a carnage! Make sure you tell your neighbor to call the police and ask them permission before he/ she shoots the guy who has already killed your family members and who is about to kill you.
I have never met one Saudi, one Iranian, one Emirati, one Syrian, one Lebanese, one Tunisian one Egyptian who did not want to go to USA either to work, to study or even to live there. If you are in Afghanistan you are more likely to be killed by the Taliban than by US forces. If you are in Iraq you are more likely to be killed by ISIL or by some militias than by US forces. If you are in Libya you are more likely to be killed by some militias than by US forces. If you are in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE you are more likely to be killed by common criminals than by US forces. The response you got from these polls is due to US military support to Israel. Fellow Muslims despise whoever helps Israel because it bombs the Palestinians.
If you have read all the information on the link you provided, then I have to confidently state that you do not know how to read. First, I asked whether the US invasion in Afghanistan has improved Afghan women’s life. You challenged me by sending a link in which the organization clearly states there has been some limited improvements in women rights since the invasion. Now, you are attempting to convince others that the US is directly responsible for the large amount of deaths in Iraq by providing a link that scientifically proves it is not the case.
Well, I have a better idea. Do not try to read that much. Go on the own link you provided, click the other links, which you advised me to do. Analyze, actually just look at the statistics available because I doubt you can analyze anything. They clearly shows that most of the dead in Iraq were due to sectarian violence. The body count argument is actually helpful to the US invasion because if you wish to go that route, then it was a good idea to topple Saddam as he was directly responsible for more Iraqi deaths when he was in power. I think you should stick to what you do best, which is your passion for obscenity.
The link from the Afghanistan women in essence said “fuck you” to you and to anyone who says that The Northern Alliance and the War Lords are any better than the Taliban.
The links I posted about Iraq war and occupation deaths don’t say, — as you lied and pretended — that they or I are “comfortable” that US troops have been responsible for the deaths of all of the Iraqi civilians who have been killed. What it does say is clear for anyone who would care to read it. Attempting to summarize it to you would only invite more lies from you, and there is no need to do so since others who would care to read can see for themselves. They don’t need me to explain, and they sure as hell don’t need you to lie about it to them.
Those lies above and others consistently posted by you are why you’ve earned and deserve the response of, go to hell you disgusting, dishonest jackass. If curse words are more upsetting to you than torture and war and violent death than read romance novels or something instead of websites that are sure to include the articles about the realities facing us around the world.
@Kitt
“The link from the Afghanistan women in essence said “xxxxxx” to you and to anyone who says that The Northern Alliance and the War Lords are any better than the Taliban.” Kitt
Really? Is that what that link said? Maybe I did not read it properly. Let me read again. I just read my post again and I did not see anything glorifying the Northern Alliance. As a matter of fact, I did not see anything from me mentioning the NA. However, I saw this question in my post
“in terms of education, healthcare, basic freedoms, is life better for Afghan women before or after the bombing of Afghanistan in 2001?” Steb 09 Oct 2014.
Here is your link as a reply:
http://www.rawa.org/rawa.html
So I followed the link again. I saw many political and human rights opinions and I also found the answer to my question there
http://www.rawa.org/satya.htm
“There is an improvement for women in certain limited parts of big cities—girls go to school and some women are allowed to work outside the home in the capital, Kabul. But the situation for women is worsening in the rest of the country.”
Sorry, I did not see any obscenities. I saw the answer to my question. I do not get it. Did you go to that link to find the answer to my question, and you could not find it? or you were just unable to read and understand my question and the answer to it?
That was your link on 15 OCT 2014
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/18/new_study_estimates_half_a_million_casualties_from_iraq_war_but_how_reliable.html
So let me read again
“The politically charged question of how many Iraqis were killed as a result of the war that began in 2003″,
a sentence that clearly suggests that the violence in Iraq was exclusively due to the US invasion in 2003.
You advised me to move from links to links, which I did and I ended up in the following link
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
I performed an analysis using their software tool and the result was that from 2004 until 2011, most of the deaths were not caused by US forces.
Kitt, if you had any basic knowledge of history you would know that sectarian violence in Iraq dates back to hundreds of years. It was worst under Saddam. Your obscenity does not upset me and does not bother me at all. You have the right to express your opinion and to show the world how ignorant you are. Cursing would not solve your inability to present your case. You need to educate yourself before you even think about challenging anybody. Good Luck!
It seems you would feel comfortable if they were all killed by the US Armed forces.
You are a dishonest interlocutor who makes up accusations and insinuations out of whole cloth in an attempt to tarnish those you disagree with. The above is a classic example of your dirty, passive-aggressive technique.
If sectarian warfare is as unavoidable as you say, then we have no business trying to police that. We have been appointed this role by no world-governing body. In fact, the fact that there is considerable world-wide opposition to our policies, is proof of exactly the opposite.
In Gallup Poll, The Biggest Threat To World Peace Is … America?
http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008
“If sectarian warfare is as unavoidable…we have no business trying to police that.”
Thank you for helping me presenting my point against Mr Greenwald and the Intercept staff. This is not your business, not Mr Greenwald’s business when 200,000 Syrians are killed, 2,4 million Syrians are refugees, and thousands are being massacred by ISIL. This is not an outrageous situation. Your indignation appears when the US bombs ISIL, saving Yazidis, Kurds and many others. It has been my view for awhile. You are not pro Muslim, pro Palestinian or pro Afghan. You actually do not care about them. You are just anti US, and you are patiently waiting for a US intervention to suddenly express your compassion for the civilian population that you have blatantly ignored. I do not believe the most powerful countries in the world need permission from a world governing body to stop a carnage! Make sure you tell your neighbor to call the police and ask them permission before he/ she shoots the guy who has already killed your family members and who is about to kill you.
I have never met one Saudi, one Iranian, one Emirati, one Syrian, one Lebanese, one Tunisian one Egyptian who did not want to go to USA either to work, to study or even to live there. If you are in Afghanistan you are more likely to be killed by the Taliban than by US forces. If you are in Iraq you are more likely to be killed by ISIL or by some militias than by US forces. If you are in Libya you are more likely to be killed by some militias than by US forces. If you are in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE you are more likely to be killed by common criminals than by US forces. The response you got from these polls is due to US military support to Israel. Fellow Muslims despise whoever helps Israel because it bombs the Palestinians.