http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/3...B920150930

Quote:In Syria, U.S.-trained rebels surrender supplies and ammunition to al Qaeda-linked insurgents. In Iraq, the battle by American-backed government forces against Islamic State is at a stalemate. In Afghanistan, the Taliban seize a provincial capital for the first time since their ouster in 2001.

Less than a year and a half after President Barack Obama used a West Point speech to lay out a strategy for relying on local partners instead of large-scale U.S. military deployments abroad, there is mounting evidence that the so-called “Obama Doctrine” may be failing.

Despite the U.S. investment of at least an estimated $90 billion in these counter-terrorism efforts, Obama has found few reliable allies to carry the load on the battlefield - and he seems to have few good options to fix the situation.

Obama also appears hemmed in by his deep aversion to seeing America drawn back into unpopular Middle East wars after pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011.

Russia’s sudden moves to seize the initiative in the Syria and Iraq crises in recent weeks have stunned U.S. officials and laid bare the erosion of Washington’s influence in the region.

Faced by the mounting setbacks, Obama will probably only make modest changes in strategy, according to current and former U.S. officials. That strongly suggests that Obama will leave some of the world’s most intractable conflicts to his successor when he leaves office in January 2017.

Quote:The Obama doctrine has floundered partly due to weak national governance in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the failure of moderate Syrian opposition groups to overcome their rivalries.

Still, many critics put the blame squarely on Obama for what they see as an overly cautious approach that has given the perception of a White House lurching from crisis to crisis.

The image of Obama as a sometimes passive world leader has been fed by perceptions that he has allowed the civil war in Syria to fester and has not acted forcefully enough to halt Islamic State’s onslaught there and in neighboring Iraq.

Fresh concerns about Obama’s Afghanistan policy have been ignited by the fall of the northern city of Kunduz to Taliban fighters this week.

U.S. officials say the Taliban's sudden gains against Afghan forces add a new dimension to discussions about whether to upend current plans and instead keep a sizeable force in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2016.

I'm not 100 percent sure any U.S. president could fix what's broke over there.

We have managed to make it worse recently.

(09-30-2015 06:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/3...B920150930

Quote:In Syria, U.S.-trained rebels surrender supplies and ammunition to al Qaeda-linked insurgents. In Iraq, the battle by American-backed government forces against Islamic State is at a stalemate. In Afghanistan, the Taliban seize a provincial capital for the first time since their ouster in 2001.

Less than a year and a half after President Barack Obama used a West Point speech to lay out a strategy for relying on local partners instead of large-scale U.S. military deployments abroad, there is mounting evidence that the so-called “Obama Doctrine” may be failing.

Despite the U.S. investment of at least an estimated $90 billion in these counter-terrorism efforts, Obama has found few reliable allies to carry the load on the battlefield - and he seems to have few good options to fix the situation.

Obama also appears hemmed in by his deep aversion to seeing America drawn back into unpopular Middle East wars after pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011.

Russia’s sudden moves to seize the initiative in the Syria and Iraq crises in recent weeks have stunned U.S. officials and laid bare the erosion of Washington’s influence in the region.

Faced by the mounting setbacks, Obama will probably only make modest changes in strategy, according to current and former U.S. officials. That strongly suggests that Obama will leave some of the world’s most intractable conflicts to his successor when he leaves office in January 2017.

Quote:The Obama doctrine has floundered partly due to weak national governance in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the failure of moderate Syrian opposition groups to overcome their rivalries.

Still, many critics put the blame squarely on Obama for what they see as an overly cautious approach that has given the perception of a White House lurching from crisis to crisis.

The image of Obama as a sometimes passive world leader has been fed by perceptions that he has allowed the civil war in Syria to fester and has not acted forcefully enough to halt Islamic State’s onslaught there and in neighboring Iraq.

Fresh concerns about Obama’s Afghanistan policy have been ignited by the fall of the northern city of Kunduz to Taliban fighters this week.

U.S. officials say the Taliban's sudden gains against Afghan forces add a new dimension to discussions about whether to upend current plans and instead keep a sizeable force in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2016.

Thanks Bush

(09-30-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 06:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/3...B920150930

Quote:In Syria, U.S.-trained rebels surrender supplies and ammunition to al Qaeda-linked insurgents. In Iraq, the battle by American-backed government forces against Islamic State is at a stalemate. In Afghanistan, the Taliban seize a provincial capital for the first time since their ouster in 2001.

Less than a year and a half after President Barack Obama used a West Point speech to lay out a strategy for relying on local partners instead of large-scale U.S. military deployments abroad, there is mounting evidence that the so-called “Obama Doctrine” may be failing.

Despite the U.S. investment of at least an estimated $90 billion in these counter-terrorism efforts, Obama has found few reliable allies to carry the load on the battlefield - and he seems to have few good options to fix the situation.

Obama also appears hemmed in by his deep aversion to seeing America drawn back into unpopular Middle East wars after pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011.

Russia’s sudden moves to seize the initiative in the Syria and Iraq crises in recent weeks have stunned U.S. officials and laid bare the erosion of Washington’s influence in the region.

Faced by the mounting setbacks, Obama will probably only make modest changes in strategy, according to current and former U.S. officials. That strongly suggests that Obama will leave some of the world’s most intractable conflicts to his successor when he leaves office in January 2017.

Quote:The Obama doctrine has floundered partly due to weak national governance in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the failure of moderate Syrian opposition groups to overcome their rivalries.

Still, many critics put the blame squarely on Obama for what they see as an overly cautious approach that has given the perception of a White House lurching from crisis to crisis.

The image of Obama as a sometimes passive world leader has been fed by perceptions that he has allowed the civil war in Syria to fester and has not acted forcefully enough to halt Islamic State’s onslaught there and in neighboring Iraq.

Fresh concerns about Obama’s Afghanistan policy have been ignited by the fall of the northern city of Kunduz to Taliban fighters this week.

U.S. officials say the Taliban's sudden gains against Afghan forces add a new dimension to discussions about whether to upend current plans and instead keep a sizeable force in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2016.

Thanks Bush

So Bush is to blame because of Obama's failed doctrine of doing as little as possible while still maintaining the ability to say you are doing something?


Troll much?

(09-30-2015 10:50 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 06:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/3...B920150930

Quote:In Syria, U.S.-trained rebels surrender supplies and ammunition to al Qaeda-linked insurgents. In Iraq, the battle by American-backed government forces against Islamic State is at a stalemate. In Afghanistan, the Taliban seize a provincial capital for the first time since their ouster in 2001.

Less than a year and a half after President Barack Obama used a West Point speech to lay out a strategy for relying on local partners instead of large-scale U.S. military deployments abroad, there is mounting evidence that the so-called “Obama Doctrine” may be failing.

Despite the U.S. investment of at least an estimated $90 billion in these counter-terrorism efforts, Obama has found few reliable allies to carry the load on the battlefield - and he seems to have few good options to fix the situation.

Obama also appears hemmed in by his deep aversion to seeing America drawn back into unpopular Middle East wars after pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011.

Russia’s sudden moves to seize the initiative in the Syria and Iraq crises in recent weeks have stunned U.S. officials and laid bare the erosion of Washington’s influence in the region.

Faced by the mounting setbacks, Obama will probably only make modest changes in strategy, according to current and former U.S. officials. That strongly suggests that Obama will leave some of the world’s most intractable conflicts to his successor when he leaves office in January 2017.

Quote:The Obama doctrine has floundered partly due to weak national governance in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the failure of moderate Syrian opposition groups to overcome their rivalries.

Still, many critics put the blame squarely on Obama for what they see as an overly cautious approach that has given the perception of a White House lurching from crisis to crisis.

The image of Obama as a sometimes passive world leader has been fed by perceptions that he has allowed the civil war in Syria to fester and has not acted forcefully enough to halt Islamic State’s onslaught there and in neighboring Iraq.

Fresh concerns about Obama’s Afghanistan policy have been ignited by the fall of the northern city of Kunduz to Taliban fighters this week.

U.S. officials say the Taliban's sudden gains against Afghan forces add a new dimension to discussions about whether to upend current plans and instead keep a sizeable force in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2016.

Thanks Bush

So Bush is to blame because of Obama's failed doctrine of doing as little as possible while still maintaining the ability to say you are doing something?


Troll much?

Bush completely destabilized the region with his war in Iraq. To suggest that Obama has failed in an unwinnable situation is disingenuous.

Proper blame lies solely on the Bush administration.

(09-30-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:50 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 06:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/3...B920150930

Quote:In Syria, U.S.-trained rebels surrender supplies and ammunition to al Qaeda-linked insurgents. In Iraq, the battle by American-backed government forces against Islamic State is at a stalemate. In Afghanistan, the Taliban seize a provincial capital for the first time since their ouster in 2001.

Less than a year and a half after President Barack Obama used a West Point speech to lay out a strategy for relying on local partners instead of large-scale U.S. military deployments abroad, there is mounting evidence that the so-called “Obama Doctrine” may be failing.

Despite the U.S. investment of at least an estimated $90 billion in these counter-terrorism efforts, Obama has found few reliable allies to carry the load on the battlefield - and he seems to have few good options to fix the situation.

Obama also appears hemmed in by his deep aversion to seeing America drawn back into unpopular Middle East wars after pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011.

Russia’s sudden moves to seize the initiative in the Syria and Iraq crises in recent weeks have stunned U.S. officials and laid bare the erosion of Washington’s influence in the region.

Faced by the mounting setbacks, Obama will probably only make modest changes in strategy, according to current and former U.S. officials. That strongly suggests that Obama will leave some of the world’s most intractable conflicts to his successor when he leaves office in January 2017.

Quote:The Obama doctrine has floundered partly due to weak national governance in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the failure of moderate Syrian opposition groups to overcome their rivalries.

Still, many critics put the blame squarely on Obama for what they see as an overly cautious approach that has given the perception of a White House lurching from crisis to crisis.

The image of Obama as a sometimes passive world leader has been fed by perceptions that he has allowed the civil war in Syria to fester and has not acted forcefully enough to halt Islamic State’s onslaught there and in neighboring Iraq.

Fresh concerns about Obama’s Afghanistan policy have been ignited by the fall of the northern city of Kunduz to Taliban fighters this week.

U.S. officials say the Taliban's sudden gains against Afghan forces add a new dimension to discussions about whether to upend current plans and instead keep a sizeable force in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2016.

Thanks Bush

So Bush is to blame because of Obama's failed doctrine of doing as little as possible while still maintaining the ability to say you are doing something?


Troll much?

Bush completely destabilized the region with his war in Iraq. To suggest that Obama has failed in an unwinnable situation is disingenuous.

Proper blame lies solely on the Bush administration.

The situation was stable when Bush left office.

Since Obama has cut and run from both Iraq and Afghanistan ISIS was formed and the Taliban has surged. That doesn't even begin to cover the instability in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.

Or an unencumbered and embolden Iran from Obama's capitulation.

(09-30-2015 10:59 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:50 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 06:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/3...B920150930

Thanks Bush

So Bush is to blame because of Obama's failed doctrine of doing as little as possible while still maintaining the ability to say you are doing something?


Troll much?

Bush completely destabilized the region with his war in Iraq. To suggest that Obama has failed in an unwinnable situation is disingenuous.

Proper blame lies solely on the Bush administration.

The situation was stable when Bush left office.

Since Obama has cut and run from both Iraq and Afghanistan ISIS was formed and the Taliban has surged. That doesn't even begin to cover the instability in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.

Or an unencumbered and embolden Iran from Obama's capitulation.

Eh, it's no use. It's easier for some to just blame everything on someone else.

(09-30-2015 11:19 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:59 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:50 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Thanks Bush

So Bush is to blame because of Obama's failed doctrine of doing as little as possible while still maintaining the ability to say you are doing something?


Troll much?

Bush completely destabilized the region with his war in Iraq. To suggest that Obama has failed in an unwinnable situation is disingenuous.

Proper blame lies solely on the Bush administration.

The situation was stable when Bush left office.

Since Obama has cut and run from both Iraq and Afghanistan ISIS was formed and the Taliban has surged. That doesn't even begin to cover the instability in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.

Or an unencumbered and embolden Iran from Obama's capitulation.

Eh, it's no use. It's easier for some to just blame everything on someone else.

Fit learns from the Excuse-Maker-in-Chief. The Buck never stops there.

(09-30-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:50 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 06:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/3...B920150930

Quote:In Syria, U.S.-trained rebels surrender supplies and ammunition to al Qaeda-linked insurgents. In Iraq, the battle by American-backed government forces against Islamic State is at a stalemate. In Afghanistan, the Taliban seize a provincial capital for the first time since their ouster in 2001.

Less than a year and a half after President Barack Obama used a West Point speech to lay out a strategy for relying on local partners instead of large-scale U.S. military deployments abroad, there is mounting evidence that the so-called “Obama Doctrine” may be failing.

Despite the U.S. investment of at least an estimated $90 billion in these counter-terrorism efforts, Obama has found few reliable allies to carry the load on the battlefield - and he seems to have few good options to fix the situation.

Obama also appears hemmed in by his deep aversion to seeing America drawn back into unpopular Middle East wars after pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011.

Russia’s sudden moves to seize the initiative in the Syria and Iraq crises in recent weeks have stunned U.S. officials and laid bare the erosion of Washington’s influence in the region.

Faced by the mounting setbacks, Obama will probably only make modest changes in strategy, according to current and former U.S. officials. That strongly suggests that Obama will leave some of the world’s most intractable conflicts to his successor when he leaves office in January 2017.

Quote:The Obama doctrine has floundered partly due to weak national governance in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the failure of moderate Syrian opposition groups to overcome their rivalries.

Still, many critics put the blame squarely on Obama for what they see as an overly cautious approach that has given the perception of a White House lurching from crisis to crisis.

The image of Obama as a sometimes passive world leader has been fed by perceptions that he has allowed the civil war in Syria to fester and has not acted forcefully enough to halt Islamic State’s onslaught there and in neighboring Iraq.

Fresh concerns about Obama’s Afghanistan policy have been ignited by the fall of the northern city of Kunduz to Taliban fighters this week.

U.S. officials say the Taliban's sudden gains against Afghan forces add a new dimension to discussions about whether to upend current plans and instead keep a sizeable force in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2016.

Thanks Bush

So Bush is to blame because of Obama's failed doctrine of doing as little as possible while still maintaining the ability to say you are doing something?


Troll much?

Bush completely destabilized the region with his war in Iraq. To suggest that Obama has failed in an unwinnable situation is disingenuous.

Proper blame lies solely on the Bush administration.

Proper blame lies solely on the Ottoman Empire.

(09-30-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:50 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 06:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/3...B920150930

Quote:In Syria, U.S.-trained rebels surrender supplies and ammunition to al Qaeda-linked insurgents. In Iraq, the battle by American-backed government forces against Islamic State is at a stalemate. In Afghanistan, the Taliban seize a provincial capital for the first time since their ouster in 2001.

Less than a year and a half after President Barack Obama used a West Point speech to lay out a strategy for relying on local partners instead of large-scale U.S. military deployments abroad, there is mounting evidence that the so-called “Obama Doctrine” may be failing.

Despite the U.S. investment of at least an estimated $90 billion in these counter-terrorism efforts, Obama has found few reliable allies to carry the load on the battlefield - and he seems to have few good options to fix the situation.

Obama also appears hemmed in by his deep aversion to seeing America drawn back into unpopular Middle East wars after pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011.

Russia’s sudden moves to seize the initiative in the Syria and Iraq crises in recent weeks have stunned U.S. officials and laid bare the erosion of Washington’s influence in the region.

Faced by the mounting setbacks, Obama will probably only make modest changes in strategy, according to current and former U.S. officials. That strongly suggests that Obama will leave some of the world’s most intractable conflicts to his successor when he leaves office in January 2017.

Quote:The Obama doctrine has floundered partly due to weak national governance in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the failure of moderate Syrian opposition groups to overcome their rivalries.

Still, many critics put the blame squarely on Obama for what they see as an overly cautious approach that has given the perception of a White House lurching from crisis to crisis.

The image of Obama as a sometimes passive world leader has been fed by perceptions that he has allowed the civil war in Syria to fester and has not acted forcefully enough to halt Islamic State’s onslaught there and in neighboring Iraq.

Fresh concerns about Obama’s Afghanistan policy have been ignited by the fall of the northern city of Kunduz to Taliban fighters this week.

U.S. officials say the Taliban's sudden gains against Afghan forces add a new dimension to discussions about whether to upend current plans and instead keep a sizeable force in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2016.

Thanks Bush

So Bush is to blame because of Obama's failed doctrine of doing as little as possible while still maintaining the ability to say you are doing something?


Troll much?

Bush completely destabilized the region with his war in Iraq. To suggest that Obama has failed in an unwinnable situation is disingenuous.

Proper blame lies solely on the Bush administration.

trollolololololol.

So boringly predictable.

Bush hasn't been in office for nearly a decade. This band of bungling fumblers has taken a situation presented to them, as ALL admins are faced with adversity, and done absolutely zippity-do-dads about doing ANYTHING.

Except broadcasting far and wide, as often as possible that the bad actors in the world are free to run amok, at will.

The ONE remaining superpower surrendered without taking the field of battle.

And now this idiot Kerry is doubling down on the stupid by simultaneously calling for Assad to go, and asking him to stay for a "transition". We're about to witness another failed State that will make the carnage in Libya look like a little league scrimmage. All while cheerleading the "opportunity" Putin might, could be giving us. For something.

Geeeeezus.

We are reaping the rewards of 30 years worth of failed policy, of being strong when we should have been diplomatic and diplomatic when we should have been strong.

Blaming Bush as somehow the originator of these problems shows an infantile appreciation for the complexities of Middle Eastern policy and geopolitics.

(09-30-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We are reaping the rewards of 30 years worth of failed policy, of being strong when we should have been diplomatic and diplomatic when we should have been strong.

Blaming Bush as somehow the originator of these problems shows an infantile appreciation for the complexities of Middle Eastern policy and geopolitics.

True, but I don't think until recently the US has been able to analyze with tool to use in anything other than hindsight. The shift to hands-off and allowing regional countries to handle the situation is really the only way forward.

(09-30-2015 12:38 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We are reaping the rewards of 30 years worth of failed policy, of being strong when we should have been diplomatic and diplomatic when we should have been strong.

Blaming Bush as somehow the originator of these problems shows an infantile appreciation for the complexities of Middle Eastern policy and geopolitics.

True, but I don't think until recently the US has been able to analyze with tool to use in anything other than hindsight. The shift to hands-off and allowing regional countries to handle the situation is really the only way forward.

I think that would have been a way forward if we didn't have a policy shift away from supporting regional powers and allies at exactly the wrong time.

The solutions the U.S. has used have almost exclusively been the right action at exactly the wrong time.

What we have now are weak nations in transition facing problems on their own instead of stronger nations facing problems on their own. That is the Obama addition to this. And, admittedly, it would have been the right answer, the right solution, 15 years ago.

As it stands, it was a devastatingly bad decision. But, that's sort of the way it has gone for 30+ years in the region. Hell, its been that way since the CIA's intervention in Iran and Mohammed Mossadeqh. That's why I shy away from blaming Obama personally. He is just the latest in a bad line.

(09-30-2015 11:58 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:50 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 06:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/3...B920150930

Thanks Bush

So Bush is to blame because of Obama's failed doctrine of doing as little as possible while still maintaining the ability to say you are doing something?


Troll much?

Bush completely destabilized the region with his war in Iraq. To suggest that Obama has failed in an unwinnable situation is disingenuous.

Proper blame lies solely on the Bush administration.

trollolololololol.

So boringly predictable.

Bush hasn't been in office for nearly a decade. This band of bungling fumblers has taken a situation presented to them, as ALL admins are faced with adversity, and done absolutely zippity-do-dads about doing ANYTHING.

Except broadcasting far and wide, as often as possible that the bad actors in the world are free to run amok, at will.

The ONE remaining superpower surrendered without taking the field of battle.

And now this idiot Kerry is doubling down on the stupid by simultaneously calling for Assad to go, and asking him to stay for a "transition". We're about to witness another failed State that will make the carnage in Libya look like a little league scrimmage. All while cheerleading the "opportunity" Putin might, could be giving us. For something.

Geeeeezus.

Wars cause serious consequences that are not easily remedied in less than 10 years.

(09-30-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We are reaping the rewards of 30 years worth of failed policy, of being strong when we should have been diplomatic and diplomatic when we should have been strong.

Blaming Bush as somehow the originator of these problems shows an infantile appreciation for the complexities of Middle Eastern policy and geopolitics.

No one is blaming Bush for the 30+ years of failed policy. But we ARE blaming him for the current mess related to the poorly executed invasion of Iraq. And ISIS can be directly related to that execution. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps, but it DID happen because of what Bush did. No objective analysis can come to any other conclusion.

(09-30-2015 01:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We are reaping the rewards of 30 years worth of failed policy, of being strong when we should have been diplomatic and diplomatic when we should have been strong.

Blaming Bush as somehow the originator of these problems shows an infantile appreciation for the complexities of Middle Eastern policy and geopolitics.

No one is blaming Bush for the 30+ years of failed policy. But we ARE blaming him for the current mess related to the poorly executed invasion of Iraq. And ISIS can be directly related to that execution. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps, but it DID happen because of what Bush did. No objective analysis can come to any other conclusion.

That simply isn't true. What we have may have been accelerated by poor moves in Iraq but at their core these problems have roots that stretch way back before the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation.

Like I said in my follow up post, it really goes back further than 30 years; it goes back to the 50s.

The Iraq invasion simply brought all of this to a head. It didn't create it.

(09-30-2015 01:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We are reaping the rewards of 30 years worth of failed policy, of being strong when we should have been diplomatic and diplomatic when we should have been strong.

Blaming Bush as somehow the originator of these problems shows an infantile appreciation for the complexities of Middle Eastern policy and geopolitics.

No one is blaming Bush for the 30+ years of failed policy. But we ARE blaming him for the current mess related to the poorly executed invasion of Iraq. And ISIS can be directly related to that execution. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps, but it DID happen because of what Bush did. No objective analysis can come to any other conclusion.

The invasion of Iraq was executed quite well, actually. Iraq was largely stable by 08-09. What was undeniably poorly executed was our cut and run exit from Iraq.

And no, don't bring up that "they didn't want us" canard, we RAN the place.

If we simply said "we're leaving 20,000 troops over there, out of your way, and we're not patrolling anymore. You all run the show. If anyone starts to F%^& around, we're taking you or them OUT". "And No, this is not a negotiation."

ISIS never would have set a toe in that territory. Once it became plain to everyone that this band of merry travelers wasn't going to do anything, well guess what?

Weakness creates a vacuum, and bad actors often fill the void. That massive sucking sound you hear is the zerO doctrine vacuum at work.

No objective analysis can come to any other conclusion.

(09-30-2015 01:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 01:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 12:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We are reaping the rewards of 30 years worth of failed policy, of being strong when we should have been diplomatic and diplomatic when we should have been strong.

Blaming Bush as somehow the originator of these problems shows an infantile appreciation for the complexities of Middle Eastern policy and geopolitics.

No one is blaming Bush for the 30+ years of failed policy. But we ARE blaming him for the current mess related to the poorly executed invasion of Iraq. And ISIS can be directly related to that execution. Would it have happened anyway? Perhaps, but it DID happen because of what Bush did. No objective analysis can come to any other conclusion.

That simply isn't true. What we have may have been accelerated by poor moves in Iraq but at their core these problems have roots that stretch way back before the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation.

Like I said in my follow up post, it really goes back further than 30 years; it goes back to the 50s.

The Iraq invasion simply brought all of this to a head. It didn't create it.

But I've seen no analysis anywhere that would indicate that Al Qaeda would have had any sort of presence whatsoever in Iraq had we not took out Saddam and removed his mostly stable Baathist government that in no way allied with AQ.

Did the Bush Invasion of Iraq “Create” ISIS?

Yes, Syria would likely still be the same clusterbleep as it currently is, but at least ISIS (if it would even exist) would be mostly confined to its borders...not to mention be a lot less influential.