Skip to main content

(Un)Worthy Fights

By


Seems Leon Panetta has an axe to grind with his old boss, saying that Obama caved into the counsel of his top aides rather than listen to him when it came to retaining a "small US force" in Iraq.  I hope Leon mentions in his book that this was Robert Gates plan, engineered in the waning months of the Bush administration, and carried out by the Obama administration, which he served.

A wave of criticism has emerged with the rise of ISIS, or IS as it is now being referred to.  For all this blather that we should have retained a force in Iraq, there is little mention that military intelligence advisers warned way back in 2002 that a war with Iraq would increase Islamist militancy throughout the region.  But, it seemed the Bush administration had a score to settle with Saddam Hussein and wasn't heeding any of this advice.  It was only in 2007 that Bush seemed to see for the first time the Pandora's Box he had opened and made what Fox news now regards as a "warning."

Obama based his 2008 campaign on full withdrawal from Iraq, so it was little surprise that his advisers told him to stick with the plan.  The only question was whether he would step up that withdrawal to 16 months (as hinted during the campaign) or let it go through as planned for three years.  Panetta was fully aware of this, but it seems he got ants in his pants in 2011 and pushed for retaining a small contingent in the country.

How long is the US expected to prop up the presumably secular government in Baghdad?  After 9 years of training, and well over a trillion dollars spent on the war, you would think the Iraqi government had sufficient forces to fend off unruly Islamists.  However, it seems that the Iraqi army has division within its ranks, resulting in a lack of will to defend the country against what on the surface appears to be a predominantly Sunni uprising.  Maybe there should have been an attempt at greater power sharing in the new Iraqi government, rather than putting in place a predominantly Shi'ite government that for the most part was antithetical to Sunni concerns.  After all, we live in an age of federations.

I don't think these air strikes will do much to beat back the Sunni insurgents, nor would have keeping a "small US Force" in the country.  These fratricidal battles have been ongoing for centuries and no doubt will continue well into the future.  Our involvement in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan only serves to exacerbate these conflicts, as we inevitably take sides without looking into these sectarian differences in any depth.   It is the Good Indian/Bad Indian argument all over again.  We still seem to base our foreign policy on romantic Western myths rather than the reality of the situation.

Comments

  1. James FergusonOctober 9, 2014 at 9:05 AM

    More unworthy comments from Panetta,

    http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-interviews-leon-panetta-103323328.html

    It really disappoints me to see a former cabinet member, who should have been well aware of the strategy deployed in the Syrian "red line," missing the whole point of the bluff, which was to draw Russia out, getting Putin to admit his role in supplying the Assad regime and that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. After all the chemical weapons were Soviet grade. But, Panetta, for whatever reasons of his own, seems to be trying to pretend he is some kind of "tough guy," when he is nothing more than career politician, serving one administration or another since 1966, who for whatever damn fool reason (probably as a political favor) Obama made director of CIA and Sec. of Defense. Wisely, it seems like Obama heeded little of Leon's advice.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

By
  Welcome to this month's reading group selection.  David Von Drehle mentions The Melting Pot , a play by Israel Zangwill, that premiered on Broadway in 1908.  At that time theater was accessible to a broad section of the public, not the exclusive domain it has become over the decades.  Zangwill carried a hopeful message that America was a place where old hatreds and prejudices were pointless, and that in this new country immigrants would find a more open society.  I suppose the reference was more an ironic one for Von Drehle, as he notes the racial and ethnic hatreds were on display everywhere, and at best Zangwill's play helped persons forget for a moment how deep these divides ran.  Nevertheless, "the melting pot" made its way into the American lexicon, even if New York could best be describing as a boiling cauldron in the early twentieth century. Triangle: The Fire That Changed America takes a broad view of events that led up the notorious fire, not...
230 comments
Read more

Team of Rivals Reading Group

By
''Team of Rivals" is also an America ''coming-of-age" saga. Lincoln, Seward, Chase et al. are sketched as being part of a ''restless generation," born when Founding Fathers occupied the White House and the Louisiana Purchase netted nearly 530 million new acres to be explored. The Western Expansion motto of this burgeoning generation, in fact, was cleverly captured in two lines of Stephen Vincent Benet's verse: ''The stream uncrossed, the promise still untried / The metal sleeping in the mountainside." None of the protagonists in ''Team of Rivals" hailed from the Deep South or Great Plains. _______________________________ From a review by Douglas Brinkley, 2005
293 comments
Read more

The Age of Roosevelt: The Crisis of the Old Order

By
A quarter of a century, however, is time enough to dispel some of the myths that have accumulated around the crisis of the early Thirties and the emergence of the New Deal. There is, for example, the myth that world conditions rather than domestic errors and extravagances were entirely responsible for the depression. There is the myth that the depression was already over, as a consequence of the ministrations of the Hoover Administration, and that it was the loss of confidence resulting from the election of Roosevelt that gave it new life. There is the myth that the roots of what was good in the New Deal were in the Hoover Administration - that Hoover had actually inaugurated the era of government responsibility for the health of the economy and the society. There is the contrasting myth (for myths do not require inner consistency) that the New Deal was alien in origins and in philosophy; that - as Mr. Hoover put it - its philosophy was "the same philosophy of government which...
170 comments
Read more