Bush/Cheney Created Conditions that Led Directly to ISIL

by bluesbaby5050 on September 15th, 2014

It takes a lot of gall for people like Dick Cheney to utter even one critical word about President Obama's strategy to eliminate the threat of ISIL in the Middle East.

In fact, it was the unnecessary Bush/Cheney Iraq War that created the conditions that led directly to the rise of the "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL).

Former George H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker said as much on this week's edition of "Meet the Press." He noted that after the first President Bush had ousted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991, the U.S. had refrained from marching on Baghdad precisely to avoid kicking over the sectarian hornet's nest that was subsequently unleashed by the Bush/Cheney attack on Iraq in 2003.

But it wasn't just the War in Iraq itself that set the stage for the subsequent 12 years of renewed, high-intensity sectarian strife between Sunni's and Shiites in the Middle East. It was also what came after.

Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.

General Petraeus took steps to reverse these policies with his "Sunni Awakening" programs that engaged the Sunni tribes against what was then known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. But the progress he made ultimately collapsed because the Bush/Cheney regime helped install Nouri Al-Maliki as Prime Minister who systematically disenfranchised Sunnis throughout Iraq.

And that's not all. The War in Iraq -- which had nothing whatsoever to do with "terrorism" when it was launched -- created massive numbers of terrorists that otherwise would not have dreamed of joining extremist organizations. It did so by killing massive numbers of Iraqis, creating hundreds of thousands of refugees, imprisoning thousands, and convincing many residents of the Middle East that the terrorist narrative was correct: that the U.S. and the West were really about taking Muslim lands.

And after all, contrary to Dick Cheney's absurd assertion that U.S. forces would be greeted in Iraq as "liberators," no one likes a foreign nation to occupy their country.

The War did more than any propagandist could possibly do to radicalize vulnerable young people. And by setting off wave after wave of sectarian slaughter it created blood feuds that will never be forgiven.

The Iraq War -- and the Sunni power vacuum caused first by U.S. policies and then Al Maliki -- created the perfect conditions that allowed a vicious band of extremists to take huge swaths of territory.

And now many of the same people who caused this foreign policy disaster have the audacity to criticize President Obama's measured efforts to clean up the mess they created. And they do so often without ever saying what they themselves would do to solve the horrific problems that they created.

It reminds you of a bunch of arsonists standing at the scene of a fire criticizing the techniques used by the firefighters who are trying to extinguish the blaze they themselves have set.

Oh, they say: "If you had just left a residual force after the withdrawal of U.S. troops everything would be hunky dory."

Do they really think that several thousand U.S. troops would have solved Iraq's problems when hundreds of thousands failed to do so?

And of course they conveniently forget to mention that neither the Iraqi's nor the U.S. voters wanted a "residual" force to remain in Iraq. And they forget that the Iraqi government would not agree to conditions that would allow a "residual" force to be stationed in Iraq.

Or perhaps they wish U.S. troops were now going door to door in Iraq cities rooting out adherents to ISIL? Only a few neo-con die-hards want more U.S. troops on the ground in the Middle East.

Or then there is the refrain that President Obama should have helped "arm" the moderate Syrian opposition earlier. Let's remember that had he acted at an earlier point it is entirely likely that many of those arms would now be in ISIL hands -- and we must be extremely careful even now to avoid precisely that problem in the days ahead.

The president's response to ISIL is supported by almost two-thirds of Americans because it seems to be the only reasonable response where the cure is not worse than the disease.

It recognizes that the problem posed by ISIL must first and foremost be dealt with by other Sunni's in the region. It is aimed at building an international coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy the ability of this vicious organization to threaten people in the Middle East or elsewhere. And it relies on American airpower to bolster the abilities of other Sunni forces to accomplish this goal.

But most Americans also realize this will not be easy -- and they're right. It won't be easy to clean up the horrific mess created by the Bush/Cheney policies in the Middle East.

Frankly, I don't think that any of the architects of the Iraq War should ever be invited on TV to say one word about foreign policy -- and especially the Middle East. They have zero credibility to comment. They have been wrong over and over again and created the conditions that spawned the problems we face today.

But if they are invited to act as "talking heads," interviewers must at least have the common decency to point out their failed track record -- and to demand that they do more than criticize the President's efforts to clean up their mistakes. They must also be required to tell us exactly what they would do to fix it.

And if any of them actually do propose a course of action, you can pretty much be sure that based on their past track records, that course of action is wrong.

 Filed under: Government


bluesbaby5050: Here's What Dick Cheney Wants Obama To Do Against ISIS - Video

Here's What Dick Cheney Wants Obama To Do Against ISIS Former Vice President Dick Cheney offered yet another critique of President Barack Obama's foreign policy on Wednesday, but beneath the heated rhetoric the leading architect of the Iraq War prescribed a strategy for countering Islamic State militants that essentially aligns with most politicians around the country.

Speaking at an American Enterprise Institute event in Washington, Cheney urged the president to counter Islamic State militants in the Middle East by expanding airstrikes in Syria, training Iraq's military forces, and partnering with allies to arm moderate Syrian opposition forces fighting President Bashar al-Assad. He stopped short, however, of calling for more U.S. ground troops in the region.

"A realistic strategy has to recognize that ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] is a grave, strategic threat to the United States," he said. "The situation is dire and defeating these terrorists will require immediate, sustained, simultaneous action across multiple fronts. Phasing in our actions will not suffice. Such a strategy will only prolong the conflict and increase the casualties." The majority of Cheney's speech was dedicated to his faults with Obama's foreign policy, a topic he has returned to again and again in recent years. Obama is a "disengaged" president, the former vice president said, who has miscalculated threats to America's interests abroad.

"Whether it’s outright enemies like the regimes in Iran and North Korea, or strategic rivals like Russia and China, hostile people are drawing conclusions from the choices we make. They take note of the hard things we do as the pre-eminent democracy, and of the hard things we finish," he said.

"They watch what our leaders do, the enemies of America, and they listen to what our leaders say," he added. "And a few of our most single-minded enemies might well have wondered why, in recent years, President Obama was talking about the terrorists being on the run, in retreat, when precisely the opposite was happening."

Cheney further urged Obama to expand the global war on terror by ramping up defense spending, including the post-9/11 "Bush-Cheney security apparatus" -- policies he noted the president once opposed.

Reacting to news that Cheney met with House Republicans on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) expressed some mockery of the former vice president for beating the drums of war in the nation he helped invade.

"There are people here in Congress who are taking advice from Dick Cheney," Reid said in a Wednesday Senate floor speech. "I think they better be very careful with the advice that they take from Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney is more responsible than anyone else for the worst foreign policy decision in the history of the country -- the invasion of Iraq. "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/dick-cheney-obama_n_5797750.html

pasqualie: I think there is alot of propaganda in news

you have to read between the lines and kind of look at what is happening without the propaganda reported on cnn and fox news.

you have at first a small group fighting the syrian government and doing well in a proxy war. they are well trained and funded by a government against the syrian government in charge.

then you have the russians taking over crimea, and its important to the russians because its one of two warm water ports for their navy. and putin says they are negotiations with a few nations to allow russia to have another warm water port.

my guess is the iraq government was in negotiations with the russians, and the americans found out. it cause problems because it gives the russians more military influence in the middle east with another naval base in iraq, and influence over middle east oil. they were also probably going to get iraqi oil contracts.

so by coincidence this well trained group fighting in syria decides to come down into iraq. there are not many of them a few thousand but they manage to capture almost all of northern iraq and up to 45 minutes outside of bagdad. Malacki gets removed.

we all know how long it takes to train a professional army. it takes at least 10 years. so this group is not just a bunch of your average joes that jumped on a plane and were handed a gun. it takes time to build and train a professional army. we can see this with how well the iraqi and afghanistan armies have done with their training.

so it was used to remove a government that was going to allow the russians to have another naval base in the middle east.

now its being used for propaganda, with the beheadings and also reports they captured a lap top with plans that this group was going to use weaponized bubonic plague against the west. where does a group like this get their hands on weaponized bubonic plague. they dont have the facilities to develope it. and its stored in only a few places around the world in secure locations.

so things are not as they are being reported there. you have to kind of read between the lines and just look at whats happening, and looking at time lines of how long it takes to train a professional army.

You must be logged in to comment

Site Statistics