mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Middle East Aflame
The Reality of Sectarian Conflict
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Michael W.

    “community organizer-in-chief” … that’s what happens when you follow up “Mission Accomplished” and unfortunate state building.

    And to anyone who blames Obama for pulling troops out of Iraq in December 2011, don’t forget that it was Bush who signed the agreement with the Iraqi government to pull troops by December 2011.

    • JR

      It’s all Bush’s fault??? DRINK!!!!!

    • Dale Fayda

      And it was Obama (and Biden) who declared Iran to be “a shining achievement” of their Administration. Remember that gem in the run-up to the 2012 election? At the end of Bush’s term, Iraq (while far from completely peaceful) was relatively pacified and intact, Kurdish semi-autonomy notwithstanding. It was secure enough for Obama to shamelessly try to take credit for it. I’m sure you recall that, don’t you? Was Obama lying in order to score electoral points or was it in fact true?

      The fact is Obama CHOSE abandon Iraq militarily and politically against the advice of his own top brass, he CHOSE to ignore the rise of ISIS, just like Clinton CHOSE to ignore the rise of Al-Qaeda and CHOSE not to take out Bin Ladin when he had the opportunity. To Obama and to liberals in general, the results of their actions are utterly irrelevant – their “good intentions” and “compassion” are what counts. Obama’s entire foreign policy (and I use the term “policy” very loosely) is all about a narrative on the brilliance of Obama, his vision of “soft power” and on whatever other idiocy du jour is being fed to us by his minions.

      Face it, lib – Obama failed spectacularly all over the world. I keep asking other liberal posters on the site if they’d like me to put together a list of “The One”s foreign policy disasters, but so far no one has taken me up on it. I wonder why…

      • FUBAR_007

        You’re a partisan. It wouldn’t matter if Obama ran the best foreign policy possible, you’d still say he was worse than Hitler. If he said the sky is blue, you’d say it’s red. If he said the Earth is round, you’d say it’s flat. If all you’re going to do is regurgitate rabid right-wing boilerplate, just paste in a link to Breitbart or Glenn Beck, and call it good.

        • Dale Fayda

          A pathetic attempt at misdirection. Reality is harsh, isn’t it, lib?

          As I asked in my previous post, would you like me to put together a list of Obama’s foreign policy disasters? It will take me a while, but I’ll do it.

          • FUBAR_007

            “As I asked in my previous post, would you like me to put together a list of Obama’s foreign policy disasters?”

            Knock yourself out. I don’t care.

            My point is that you have no credibility. It doesn’t matter whether Obama has been successful or not. You would never acknowledge if he had been, anyway. You’re not providing any kind of sober, balanced assessment, just spewing boilerplate right-wing talking points.

            Your liberal counterparts did the same thing from the left during the Bush years.

            You hate liberals, think they’re all stupid and evil, and everything else you say flows from that.

          • Dale Fayda

            You’re right. I really SHOULD base my opinions on actual facts, right?

            Well, here is a recent fact for you: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/257149-us-iran-missile-test-was-clear-violation-of-sanctions.

            Wel, that did not take long, did it? Now what was it you were saying Obama being “successful”?

  • Jim__L

    “The only way to stop these terrible cruelties and crimes is to prevent
    them: to maintain international order and to prevent the state meltdowns
    that leave ethnic and religious communities in a state of nature.”

    It seems to me that the word “international” was optional in that statement. Although it would be interesting to see the hopeful, constructive and not entirely ideological minds at Via Meadia make the argument that there are historical examples of this working. However, I am not hopeful based on the concession of ignorance in the last sentence.

  • Arkeygeezer

    Amnesty International is always accusing someone of war crimes. War itself is a “war crime” no matter which side is fighting.
    We can prevent wars by maintaining international order? Whose job is it to maintain international order?
    If you use armed force to maintain order in a religious war, you are bound to be accused of war crimes by Amnesty International and their supporters.

    • Jacksonian_Libertarian

      Eviction at gun point, how does that compare to ISIS murdering every man in a village and then raping and enslaving all the women and children? Amnesty International is so lame, you would think they would go after the murderers and rapists (real crimes) before the ones that might actually be the legal eviction of squatters.

  • gabrielsyme

    to maintain international order and to prevent the state meltdowns that leave ethnic and religious communities in a state of nature.

    Which is precisely why, despite the many failings of the Syrian government, the international community should have refused to endorse, fund and harbour the rebellion, which has brought only tears and may bring even greater horrors should it triumph.

  • FUBAR_007

    Mead: “The only way to stop these terrible cruelties and crimes is to prevent them: to maintain international order and to prevent the state meltdowns that leave ethnic and religious communities in a state of nature. The so-called “international community” and the world’s community organizer-in-chief have failed in that; now the grim consequences are appearing one by one.”

    Your assumption is that it is the United States’, and the U.S. President’s, responsibility to do those things. It isn’t. The job of the U.S. President is to advance U.S. interests and the interests of its citizens. That’s it.

    That the people of the Middle East have elected to start slaughtering each other, as horrific and tragic as it is, is neither our fault nor our responsibility to address. It’s not our war.

    Right-wing militia paranoid conspiracy notwithstanding, there is no world government. There is no global social contract. There is no global community or single human nation-state. The U.S. President is not the President of the world. The U.S. military is not a global police force.

    • Dale Fayda

      But it is our responsibility to accept tens of thousands of illiterate, indignant, radicalized dregs of the Third World, right?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world/middleeast/obama-directs-administration-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

      Or is that good and proper because it plays into the Left’s plans to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”?

      • FUBAR_007

        “But it is our responsibility to accept tens of thousands of illiterate, indignant, radicalized refugee dregs of the Third World, right?”

        Nope.

        “Truly, liberalism is a mental disorder.”
        You’re looking for hippies to punch. You’ll have more luck finding liberals to fight with at Mother Jones or Salon.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service