Obama's Epic Failures

mac · Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:12 pm Post subject:

Hyperbole in the service of hatred. With a side dish of British public school haughtiness and nastiness. In full color smug-o-rama. Myrgybe now says that he didn’t mean that the US influence in the region was gone, and we should have known he was only writing about Yemen. Perhaps he only made a fat finger error. More likely fat head. He is wrong on all accounts.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in a series of proxy wars across the region, triggered by the unraveling of Iraq in the wake of a disastrous invasion and even more disastrous occupation. Both fund terrorists that they believe to be freedom fighters, with funding allotted to tribal allies. Because of their oil resources, and their ties to oil politicians, the Saudis have been given a free pass by the United States, including spiriting officials back to Saudi Arabia after the 9/11 bombings—by a group of Saudis. Iranian money is behind the Houthis—but the Iranians are helping out in Iraq. Confused yet? Mrgybe has no interest in providing anything beyond talking points that attack Obama, so pay attention.

The US is anything but without influence. Perhaps Obama is more strategic and less bellicose than mrgybe would like. It might be possible to construct an argument in favor of a different approach—but I won't hold my breath waiting for mrgybe to actually write something beyond snark. Perhaps Obama actually understands that it the US is in an awkward position in the middle of a religious/tribal war that has been going on for 700 years, and will be blamed even more if they back one side too strongly. In Iraq, the deal for US air support/bombing was that the Shia militias backed by Iran had to back off. Somehow it doesn’t seem that the US has lost influence in the region.

Turning to Yemen, let’s look at a few facts. Population about 23 million, per capita income a little over $1000 US, and only 65% literacy rate. Poor, with significant corruption largely seen as the cause of continued poverty and stagnated growth, and blamed to some degree on the United States. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/15/opinion/opinion-yemen-salisbury/

The US backed President has been run out of town, and is now in Saudi Arabia, and the former President Ali Abdullah Saleh is leading the rebels, which have take over much of the country. One might reasonably ask whether the United States is required, under some theory by the archbishop, to intervene in all civil wars in the world, or just those that might affect profits for oil companies? In any event, the Saudi Arabian military has been constructed using revenues from oil sales and purchases from the United States. Does anyone else think that it might make sense for Saudi Arabia, with its proximity to Yemen and antipathy to Iran, along with over 230,000 military personnel, over 1200 tanks, and over 600 aircraft to take the lead in fighting the rebels in Yemen? That’s exactly what has been happening, and the rebels (but not mrgybe) think that the US and Israel are behind it all.

For our next lesson, we can examine the colossal mistakes of the British in the partitioning of India and Pakistan, and in their other post-colonial misadventures. I guess some never tire of pining for their empire.

coboardhead · Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303

I resent the comment by Mrgybe that those of us wear partisan "blinkers" if we do not object to Obama's mid-East strategy.

The last time I wore my blinkers was when I voted for Cheney...err I mean Bush. The void, filled by ISIS was created when we removed Saddam with no plan for a successor OR an exit strategy. We left Iraq at the request of the new government. Staying would have been an "occupation". Sort of the definition of staying without permission.

The fact that the Saudis are stepping up with arms, supplied by the US, to combat regional uprisings, may not be such a bad thing. Isn't it time the region started dealing with their issues without our intervention?

Meanwhile, back in the US, tens of thousands are murdered, many by unrestricted firearms, every year. I wonder if we would be more interested in those conflicts if our inner cities had vast reserves of oil?

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180

mac · Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:22 pm Post subject:

If you actually read the full article from which mrgybe cherry-picked his earlier quote from a former Bush official, found here: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/barack-obama-yemen-isil-middle-east-116440.html

you would realize that he has again spun the story. Shocking, eh? To be sure, his allegation "we have left it [Yemen] to Iran." is even greater nonsense.

He seems to think that Obama owes his buddies in the oil industry and the far right a detailed explanation. Public school hubris rears its head again.

The cherry on the sundae is a nuclear deal. There are a number of allies participating in the negotiations--and a handful of whacky Tea Baggers screaming because they aren't. A ten year hiatus--brought about by Obama's diplomatic abilities to get a united approach on sanctions, something Shrub didn't even try to do on Iraq--is a significant diplomatic accomplishment, far greater than anything Shrub achieved. That's why the far right is so desperate to stop it.

coboardhead · Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303

1. A mid-East strategy where we do not, immediately, jump to military solutions.
2. Maintaining economic sanctions against Iran to bring them to the table.
3. Engaging a regional response to ISIS instead of moving in and trying to "save the day".

You may have seen success with the previous Administration's efforts. I saw failure and overwhelming loss of life and resource. The "fires" have been burning for decades, if not centuries. Blaming this on ANY one Administration is not justifiable.

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180

mac · Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:48 am Post subject:

CB--those who are paying attention and not besotted by hatred might recognize two more:

4. Avoid unwavering acceptance of corruption in "US friendly" leaders, as it appears to be one of the root causes of unrest.

5. Don't accept the recommendations of the oil industry as altruistic.

Arguments such as the last posting of the archbishop's that we should blame the entire deterioration of peace on Obama are more of the same. We knew 40 years ago when I was still wet behind the ears that the United States could not continue to consume a disproportionate share of the world's resources with a much smaller portion of the population. We have seen that play out inexorably, with the GOP thinking they can stop the process with military misadventures nearly everywhere, and blaming all chaos on Democrats. Works even better when the Democrat in charge is black.

mac · Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:20 pm Post subject:

On a slightly less snarky note, it is impossible to ignore the role of the dissolution of Syria as a centerpiece for chaos in the Middle East, and the difficulty of finding solutions. There are 3 million refugees in other countries, and more than 6 million have been displaced within Syria. Syria continues our schooling in the region that the solutions to autocratic rule are complicated, and replete with unintended consequences.

The vacuum in Syria, combined with the de-Bathification of the Iraq military have contributed to the chaos and the rise of ISIS. Surrounding countries have already faced such major challenges from dealing with refugees that military options have become more favored.

I don't see any easy solutions to this wicked problem, and I believe the Obama administration has been correct in learning that the Arab spring has failed to deliver more palatable rule in Egypt, much less Libya.

Capitalizing on this chaos is the cornerstone of the Republican strategy. It is far easier to point out the evident chaos than to parse either the underlying causes or propose solutions. Those offered by folks like mrgybe--forcing Maliki out and keeping troops in Iraq--are simply stop gaps that do not deal with the underlying problems.

One may well fault Obama's disinterest in Iraq, and the widely reported US role in engineering Maliki's reelection. Maliki's actions clearly poured gasoline on the sectarian differences within Iraq. But identifying an alternative course that might be more effective is much more difficult. And always missing from the gybster's screeds.

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

Much of what mrgybe is saying is true. There are crazy things going on right now, particularly in the Islamic nations of the North Africa and the Middle East. What is very selective though, is how to interpret what's going on, and what course of action to follow.

I wonder how much mrgybe would be willing to support higher income taxes to pay for a myriad of foreign military wars, and the required re-construction and nation building that would be required in their wake. Would his fellow Americans support this, or could they be convinced that we should cut the crap out of what we do domestically, so that we can concert the world in support of our "national security interests" (whatever that really means) abroad? Should we spend vastly on wars, and support for questionable foreign policy, rather than on our nation's domestic future? Tough questions.

This week, a Saudi foreign minister said that maybe Saudi Arabia should develop and/or acquire a military nuclear defense capability to protect their national interests.

You know what's unbelievable about that? There is no one in government or the media, from the right or the left, eagerly stepping up and stating that we should take a "no nuke" stance against Saudi Arabia like we're promoting right now with Iran. Why is that? Is it because Saudi Arabia is our chief "oil" friend and military ally in the Middle East? The Saudis have a formidable military in the region already, but that's OK because they represent freedom in the region?