It is surely no coincidence that on Sunday an Iraqi court sentenced to death Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a prominent Sunni, and on the same day Sunni militants unleashed a series of attacks across Iraq, many of them aimed at Shiites, which killed some 100 people. Not that the bombings were planned in response to Hashemi’s sentencing in absentia–such coordinated strikes have to be arranged well in advance. But the attacks are symptomatic of how Iraq is starting to unravel: Prime Minister Maliki is seen as a Shiite militant who is persecuting Sunnis and Sunni extremists are responding with their trademark terrorist attacks.
It is quite possible that Hashemi is guilty of the killings attributed to him–but then similar charges could be lodged against many senior Shiite political figures. Too many Iraqi politicos to count have blood on their hands from the dark days of Iraq’s civil war, which finally petered out in 2008–at least temporarily. The fact that the courts, which are widely viewed as beholden to Maliki and not in any credible way independent, have gone after Hashemi is widely seem as a political vendetta–not as justice being done. The evidence against Hashemi, moreover, appears to have come from the torture of his bodyguards.
All of this is deeply disturbing because it threatens to throw off the delicate balance that Iraqi politics achieved after the success of the surge. By 2009 Al Qaeda in Iraq had been effectively defeated and Iraq had an excellent chance to emerge as an enduring democracy. Now that chance is being squandered because of Maliki’s short-sightedness–and because the Obama administration has totally given up trying to play any meaningful role in Iraq’s future. Not only do we not have any more troops in Iraq; we don’t even have an ambassador.
Iraq is only mentioned by the president in the context of “I ended the war.” On the contrary, it appears more accurate to say that Obama, with his failure to renew the mandate of U.S. troops, may have restarted a war that had been effectively ended after the sacrifice of the lives of 4,486 U.S. service personnel. Voters may not care now, but if the situation continues to worsen it will be a major blot on Obama’s historical legacy, something that he appears not to realize at the moment. More significantly, it will be a dangerous blow against U.S. interests in the Middle East.
Another Iraq War: n nMore power to them,as long as we're not involved. n nPS Someone please quote Romney's policy on Iraq? LOL
Amazingly, I actually agree with you on that one. n nAs for Romney's Iraq policy, it is perfect just the way it is. n nNot every hiccup, belch, or fart occurring anywhere in the world requires a 'policy', unless of course you come from the Max Boot school of thought. n nGood thing Romney is not taking Max's advice on foreign policy pronouncements. Sure way to lose the election. n nMax, the day we decided to win 'hearts and minds', allowed Syria to transship fighters, Iran to kill our young men with impunity, and substituted blue thumbs for cultural reconstruction is the day we lost the Iraq war. n nAnd that goes quadruple for Afghanistan. n
"On the contrary, it appears more accurate to say that Obama, with his failure to renew the mandate of U.S. troops, may have restarted a war " n nSorry, Mr. Boot, that's just an absurd charge. Obama didn't restart this war if indeed one occurs. If it's restarted it's because of the actors in Iraq who choose to do so. They are the people responsible for not moving on from the sectarian and petty disputes over who runs the country. Not President Obama. n nYou can argue that Obama didn't do enough to prevent a restart of a war. But to claim that his actions STARTED one is irresponsible. n nThis is analogous to those on the left who said Bush was responsible for the horrible sectarian violence after the removal of the Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein. No he wasn't; the sectarian groups were responsible. If those groups start another conflict in Iraq it will be they who are responsible for the bloodshed and not Obama.
I suppose the way Max sees it, the Iraqis are not responsible for what they do, only we are. We act, and the Iraqis are mere objects of our actions. n n
Apparently so. It's similar, as I noted, to the criticism directed at Bush over the sectarian violence in 2005 and 2006. Somehow he was responsible for the bloodshed and not Al-Qaeda, the Baathist/Sunnis and Shi'a militants. n nNo, the people perpetrating the violence are responsible. One can claim that Bush or Obama took actions that contributed to the violence; but to hold them individually responsible is to give the actual actors a pass. n nThat's simply illogical. n n
Was it worth 500,000 American lives to rid Europe of the Nazis and stop the Japanese? The consensus of opinion then and now is yes. But losing 50,000 in Vietnam with nothing to show for it and losing 5,000 plus between Iraq and Afghanistan with similar lack of results is unacceptable. n nUS militiary action has worked well under two circumstances: First, WWII. We were willing to do everything necessary to acheive unconditional surrender. America demanded respect and conciliation. We did not try to make friends with the Germans or Japanese. Once our objectives were met we were merciful and generous. For that we gained their admiration and today those two are among our best allies. We have also been effective at limited strikes. When Libya's Gaddafi was activiely involved in terrorism in the 1980s, President Reagan sent him a message in the form of a cruise missile. He survived but family members were killed. All the experts were critical, but the terrorism from Libya stopped. Saddam could have been the recipient of such a strategy. Today Ahmadinejad is begging for his turn. We pay billions every year for military technology that we are too afraid to use.
Bravo.
to acheive unconditional surrender n nIronically,the stubborn insistence on unconditional surrender cost millions of lives,including million of Jews,and allowed the rise of Soviet power in east Europe. nA deal to get rid of Hitler,and restore Germany to a military government under our intent supervision,was possible in 1943.
Now you are getting crazy again. n nWe should have made a deal with Hitler's people, you are saying, short of total German surrender? n nIs that you, Dr. Paul?
You're not thinking straight:The German military offered us a deal to get rid of Hitler and the Nazi party,set up a German military government under our supervision,in 1943. Considering what happened to innocents from 1943-45,you wouldn't have considered a conditional surrender. Shame on you.
The hesitation of the "German military" to resist Hitler as late as the attempted assassination in 1944 is well documented. Complete tosh.
Are you implying that he has ever been anything but?
off your meds again. What are you going on about? There was no such deal on the horizon. Read some history.
How much tribalism and centuries old vendettas by groups who don't like each other did you have going on in Japan and Germany after the war ended? n
We stomped on Japan and Germany like Godzilla. Plus Japanese and Germans were both homogeneous cultures.
"Plus Japanese and Germans were both homogeneous cultures." n nI thought that was my point. It is also the case that Japanese and German societies had constitutional breakthroughs in their past. n nThe implication in your first sentence is quite inaccurate. Complete military tactical victory was achieved in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan every bit as much as it was achieved in Japan and Germany. n nYou know Japan and Germany used to be tribal areas — in about 700 a.d. or so. They formed into nation states over a period of centuries.