C'mon President

U.S. Strategy Seeks to Avoid ISIS Prophecy from the NY Times

George Bush never stated it, but very much used a fly paper strategy by going to war in Iraq.  For some reason Obama never thought that agitating Jihadist's and goading them to battle our soldiers in their lands was a good strategy.  Even though our never stated strategy was clearly starting to bear fruit Obama put an end to it in Iraq.  Obviously (or obliviously) Obama knew What? was best.

What? was so smart about handing Iraq over to Iran to deal with?  How was that in our or any of our allies best interests?

Well as it turns out Obama's strategy is looking as foolish as he thought Bush was for invading Iraq.

So now we have an emboldened Iran and a resurgent Sunni jihadists. And now we have a very limited number of troops back in Iraq and presumably in Syria as well.   But those troops are not seen as occupiers in the eyes of the Jihadist's and those they are recruiting. (rolling eyes and smh)

So now we find out from the no less than the NY Times we must be careful not to fulfill some crazy Jihadist prophecy/fantasy.  C'mon President Obama don't tell me you believe in some crazy Jihadist superstition.  You want to do something about stemming Jihadist recruiting then go right after there crazy superstitions.  They want a battle in Dabiq, lets blow the place up and then send in the Marines along with your much vaunted international coalition.

Put aside your pride Obama, Bush was right, battle them over there and the problem won't be as bad over here.  

Iraq War: The Inconvenient Facts

Tonight in the Democratic Party Presidential debate, they were all in agreement that the Iraq War was the worst foreign policy mistake in American History.

Really???

The facts:
In 2009, when GWB left the White House the nation of Iraq was stable, Al Qaeda in Iraq if not totally defeated was badly beaten and on their way to defeat, and the nation of Iraq was heading in the right direction.

What happened?  Obama failed to negotiate a Status Of Forces agreement allowing US troops to stay in country to insure the progress would continue in the right direction.  The US troops in country were the one honest broker that would be able to see that the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds all got along.

Obama and Clinton then neglected Iraq and dropped the ball during the Arab Spring allowing Iran to extend it's influence in Iraq leading to the neglect of the Sunni and Kurdish area's of the country, which in time led to the rise of ISIS and a new civil war in Iraq starting in 2013.

If Iraq War is the worst foreign policy mistake in American History, it's because of failure, neglect, and negligence directly attributable to the foreign policy of Obama and the Democratic Party.  

My Thoughts on the Iran Deal

Obama is taking a huge risk that his diplomacy will work out for the best in the end.  I believe taking that risk is reckless and irresponsible.  We absolutely should have put war on the table and dictated the terms to the Iranians or else.  For Gods sakes the Iranian leadership goal is to bring down Israel and the United States.  We know this because they say so frequently.

Did negotiating with North Korea keep them from cheating and getting the bomb?

There is absolutely no reason to trust we can verify anything, short of what we did in Iraq to Saddam.  The Iranians wouldn't even concede that their ambition is to get a nuclear weapons.

SMH.

Bill Clinton, Had He Done the Right Thing Back Then...

...how would history be different now?

What got me thinking about this question again and ole' Slick Willy was the way former Texas Ranger Ron Washington handled his infidelity the past couple of weeks.  And also how my Governor Mark Dayton reacted to the Adrian Peterson situation with these remarks:

"It is an awful situation. Yes, Mr. Peterson is entitled to due process and should be 'innocent until proven guilty.' However, he is a public figure, and his actions, as described, are a public embarrassment to the Vikings organization and the State of Minnesota,"

Back in 1998, I was adamant that the only proper thing for Bill Clinton to do in light of the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal was for him to resign his office in disgrace.  That was clearly the right thing for him to do.  Yet for reasons that may forever be beyond me Bill wouldn't do it and the Democrats wouldn't make him do it.  It's not like the Democrats wouldn't still hold the Presidency and I believe it's the only reason why GWB even had a shot at beating Al Gore in 2000.

Would 9/11 have happened? I think probably so and the War in Afghanistan would have gone pretty much as it has.

Would the Iraq War have happened?  I think the chances are better than 50/50 that it would have.  A little later than 2003 probably, but I believe Al Gore wanted Saddam gone.

Would Gore have gotten a 2nd term? I'm 98% positive he would have.

Would the financial collapse of 2008 happened?  Pretty much 100% sure nothing would have happened to stop that.  But I believe the nation would have been in better financial shape thanks to no Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.  Yes, I believe the Bush tax cuts were clearly a mistake.

Who wins the 2008 election?  In light of that, a Republican obviously.  I don't even know if we would know Barak Obama's name right now had Bill Clinton resigned.

Would we have gotten Osama at the exact same time we eventually did?  Pretty much.

Who wins in 2012? No idea, but what I'm sure of is we would be in a lot better shape in the "Long War" than we are now.

Why didn't that SOB Bill resign?

Obama's Iraq Policy

Disaster by Peter Beinert of The Atlantic

Candidate Obama On Iraq, "I Will Do Stupid Shit!"

Op-ed from the New York Times
In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

I thought Barak's foreign policy motto was "Don't Do Stupid Shit". Can we all be honest and admit that Barak's policy in Iraq was some pretty stupid shit. This Nation would have been served far better had we done what McCain said we should do in Iraq back in 2008.

Well Written, I Couldn't Agree More

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their President.

This was from the comment section of the Washington Post in an article about figuring out Obama's worldview.

I'm Not Happy, So I'm Back

I haven't blogged my thoughts here for the last couple of years for a couple of reasons.

1. I had a stroke in December of 2011 that has negatively effected my intellectual capabilities.  For instance  I don't have the same level of short and long term memory recall as I did before.  My deficits in intellectual capabilities makes blogging thoughtful posts much more difficult than it was before.
(Writing this one took me several hours, yes hours! And I wouldn't describe it as very thoughtful)

2. The country electing Barak Obama for a second term was totally discouraging to me.  How could people be that foolish?  Fool them once shame on him, fool them twice shame on this country.  I was left to just shake my head and pretty much checked out on the serious war on terror issues that this blog mostly focused around.

So why am I back now?  I'm pissed off with Obama's "smart diplomacy" that has blown up in our faces.  This is especially true for things are turning out in Iraq.  What a major fuck up?  Completely conceding our influence there to Iran when we pulled all our troops out was just asking for trouble.  And please don't give me that flimsy excuse that getting the hell out wasn't up to him.  He couldn't get our troops out fast enough to claim how he "responsibly ended the war."  What a crock of shit!  Now thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi's that shouldn't have had to pay more for our invasion in 2003 than they originally already had to are getting stuck with an even higher bill.  That just plain sucks!!!

If you don't believe what I'm saying I encourage everyone to read:

Behold What Is Possible Without America by The Dignified Rant Blog
(I have pretty much always been in 100% agreement with The Dignified Rant on Iraq Policy)

What We Left Behind by Dexter Filkins The New Yorker

and last but not least my own
9/11 Has America Forgotten? written on 9/11/2010

and

Are Terrorists Wiser Than You? Written back in 2004.  We hadn't forgotten 9/11 in 2004.  Four years later  we as a nation just buried our head in the sand and gave what our soldiers fought so hard for away and for What?

What I Really Wanna Know Is...

There has been a bunch of hoopla in the air over the past few days due to a Pew Research Poll that found 18% of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim. Some are apoplectic over this result.

I am not that interested in what "the average American" thinks on this matter. What I really wanna know is what a representative sample of American Muslims would show in answer to this question and then beyond that the results of scientific polls of Muslims from around the globe on this same question. I think those results would be highly interesting.

A Very Good Speech

Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize
December 10, 2009

Here are the highlights from my perspective:
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
------------------------------------------------------
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
--------------------------------------------------------
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

(Let us remember that in no small measure the regime of Saddam Hussein stood because of corruption of the United Nations and nations like France, Germany, Russia, and China that did business both legal and illicit with Saddam.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama's Escalation Speech

It seems to me that he is not sending all the right messages with such a quick timetable for surge and withdrawal. On the one hand it does send the message to our Afghan allies that they must get their act together sooner rather than later, but What? about the messages this sends to the more neutral or negatively lined against us. I think it would have been much wiser to sketch a 5 to 6 year commitment verses one that for practical purposes lasts a year to a year in a half. If the Taliban are smart they will use the next year to do a lot of intimidation and not very much fighting.

Update: I've thought about it some more and think publicly announcing a date for deescalation is messed up, and just plain stupid. If you are going to put a timetable on this surge it would be far wiser to keep that information top secret and only share it with a small number of the most important Afghan officials. That way they get the message, but the Taliban and the neutrals don't. I think Obama took a huge and unnecessary risk by his public comments committing to a timetable for withdrawal.

Update: This is What? I regard as the best part of the speech:
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions – from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank – that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades – a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for – and what we continue to fight for – is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

This said I think there was too many gratuitous moments and I find Obama's self reverential personal regard obnoxious.

The speech could have been a whole lot better, I give it a C.