"Losing Iraq" documentary PBS Frontline

Tidewater · Aug 17, 2014

Losing Iraq
It is hard hitting. The filmmakers hit the Bush Administrationn hard for lunacy of de-Baathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi army, which was clearly the policy of Lord Voldemort (Rummy). This was a catastrophically stupid policy.

It also takes The One to task for refusing to even think through what policy he wanted to pursue (beyond just leaving as fast as he could, consequences be damned). Obama personally demanded that any SOFA be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament, something never demanded by the Bush Admionistration. Maliki could not deliver a parliamentary approval of a SOFA (something Frontline shows was intentional on the part of the Obama Administration). In other words, Obama placed demands he knew Maliki could not deliver so Obama would have an excuse for cutting and running. The whole documentary (1 hour, 24 minutes) is excellent but if you only want the Obama Administration stuff, start at one hour point.

Now we are dealing with some really bad consequences.

"The whole situation is a dog's breakfast, suitably thrown up."

Bama Reb · Aug 17, 2014

I don't know anyone who didn't see this coming from a hundred miles away. You create a power vacuum, and something has to, and will, fill the void. What did Obama think was going to happen?

bamachile · Aug 17, 2014

Bama Reb said:
I don't know anyone who didn't see this coming from a hundred miles away. You create a power vacuum, and something has to, and will, fill the void. What did Obama think was going to happen?

Or Bush?

I'm a fan of neither, particularly in this matter.

twofbyc · Aug 17, 2014

bamachile said:
Or Bush?

I'm a fan of neither, particularly in this matter.

I think Bush wanted a democracy because, you know, democracies don't start wars with each other...? I am conflicted on the use of blue font here.

bamachile · Aug 17, 2014

twofbyc said:
I think Bush wanted a democracy because, you know, democracies don't start wars with each other...? I am conflicted on the use of blue font here.

I've never understood this logic. What in the blazes does an American wanting democracy in another country (which we don't have here, either, BTW) have to do with the people of that country wanting one? Why must we be so arrogant as to think that the whole world and all of its cultures absolutely must want whatever we want?

Bama Reb · Aug 17, 2014

bamachile said:
Or Bush?

I'm a fan of neither, particularly in this matter.

So, 6 years after Obama takes office, and Obama removes all the troops that Bush put into place, and you're blaming Bush? Really??

Displaced Bama Fan · Aug 17, 2014

bamachile said:
I've never understood this logic. What in the blazes does an American wanting democracy in another country (which we don't have here, either, BTW) have to do with the people of that country wanting one? Why must we be so arrogant as to think that the whole world and all of its cultures absolutely must want whatever we want?

Iraq was one of the countries, like Libya and Venezuela that was not part of the Central Banking cartel. Two of the three now are. We owed China a lot of money, Iraq had the oil, China needed the oil, wah lah. Bush didn't want a democracy, he just had to sell that to the sheeple to buy into the "war" in Iraq to begin with.

bamachile · Aug 17, 2014

Bama Reb said:
So, 6 years after Obama takes office, and Obama removes all the troops that Bush put into place, and you're blaming Bush? Really??

For getting us into this mess? Who should I blame, Clinton? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Who was the guy that toppled the Hussein regime and destabilized the area? What was his name? Whether 6 years from his decision or 60 years, he's still responsible for that decision and all of its consequences.

It's possible you might mistakenly think I'm an apologist for the current regime. I'm far from it. Pres. Obama is responsible for the current power vacuum for reasons aptly summed up by the OP. I simply refuse to hold either of them blameless.

Bamabuzzard · Aug 17, 2014

bamachile said:
I've never understood this logic. What in the blazes does an American wanting democracy in another country (which we don't have here, either, BTW) have to do with the people of that country wanting one? Why must we be so arrogant as to think that the whole world and all of its cultures absolutely must want whatever we want?

Because the attitude of our government has become "We know what's best for you and come hell or high water we're going give it to you."

Displaced Bama Fan · Aug 17, 2014

Bamabuzzard said:
Because the attitude of our government has become "We know what's best for you and come hell or high water we're going give it to you."

I liked the old government where we set up dictatorships like the Somozas, Pinochets, & Husseins.

RammerJammer14 · Aug 17, 2014

bamachile said:
I've never understood this logic. What in the blazes does an American wanting democracy in another country (which we don't have here, either, BTW) have to do with the people of that country wanting one? Why must we be so arrogant as to think that the whole world and all of its cultures absolutely must want whatever we want?

Well unlike other countries, Americans believe that democracy, or more correctly individual liberty, is THE natural truth of humanity. We are one of the few countries, if not the only country, who believes that individual rights are inherent as opposed to granted. Democracy is the political embodiment of this truth. As such, America believes that all governments should ultimately be democracies in order for all people to experience the natural state of liberty and exercise their inherent rights.

That is why I believe we tried to build a democracy in Iraq. If all men are created equal, if rights are endowed to men by the Creator- not by government, then all governments have the responsibility to promote and protect individual liberty. Any government that does not is technically illegitimate.

However, I don't think Iraq was ready for a democracy. Or if it was, we certainly went the wrong way about it. Especially creating a complete power vacuum for no real reason.

bamaga · Aug 17, 2014

Iraq has always been a country of fractured Ideology. In hindsight, it is clear that for all the horrible things Saddam did to his people, ruling by fear was the glue holding Iraq together. I am not advocating Hussein should still be in power, but I don't think the ramifications of an absence of absolute power were given enough thought. With that, there was no clear exit strategy.I am not a Bush apologist, I think his second term was a disaster. When Hussein was deposed, there was no real solution , only opportunities for the many enemies of America in the region. It will be decades before there will be stabilization in Iraq.....if ever.

TIDE-HSV · Aug 18, 2014

bamaga said:
Iraq has always been a country of fractured Ideology. In hindsight, it is clear that for all the horrible things Saddam did to his people, ruling by fear was the glue holding Iraq together. I am not advocating Hussein should still be in power, but I don't think the ramifications of an absence of absolute power were given enough thought. With that, there was no clear exit strategy.I am not a Bush apologist, I think his second term was a disaster. When Hussein was deposed, there was no real solution , only opportunities for the many enemies of America in the region. It will be decades before there will be stabilization in Iraq.....if ever.

Good post. I'm of the opinion, as I was in the beginning, that Iraq would be divided in three parts. I just didn't visualize it's happening in this manner. The Sunnis in ISIS have taken far more than they historically occupied. I think the Kurds, with some help, will take back what was theirs. I think some of our leaders just were ignorant of history of the area. In a way, I could excuse our stupidity. The British were a different story for following us in. After all, they tried to govern Iraq for 20 years and lost 20,000 men. They had no excuse...

RammerJammer14 · Aug 18, 2014

TIDE-HSV said:
Good post. I'm of the opinion, as I was in the beginning, that Iraq would be divided in three parts. I just didn't visualize it's happening in this manner. The Sunnis in ISIS have taken far more than they historically occupied. I think the Kurds, with some help, will take back what was theirs. I think some of our leaders just were ignorant of history of the area. In a way, I could excuse our stupidity. The British were a different story for following us in. After all, they tried to govern Iraq for 20 years and lost 20,000 men. They had no excuse...

The British actually went in with the mindset that they had the edge because they had been there before.

Bama Reb · Aug 18, 2014

bamachile said:
For getting us into this mess? Who should I blame, Clinton? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Who was the guy that toppled the Hussein regime and destabilized the area? What was his name? Whether 6 years from his decision or 60 years, he's still responsible for that decision and all of its consequences.

It's possible you might mistakenly think I'm an apologist for the current regime. I'm far from it. Pres. Obama is responsible for the current power vacuum for reasons aptly summed up by the OP. I simply refuse to hold either of them blameless.

And neither am I for Bush. I don't agree with many of his decisions while in office, and he is far from what I would call an ideal President. However you in your post, as have many others, fail to mention or even acknowledge that GWB did have information provided to him by several intelligence sources that prompted his action. On top of that, practically the entire US Congress, including many prominent Dems, verifying that info and urging him to take action. When he did act, it certainly was not by Executive Action alone. Neither did he ignore Congress or act as if he were King of the US, as Obama has done on countless occasions.

And fwiw, I was never in favor of going into Iraq in the first place. Iirc in fact, I was one of the many American citizens who wrote him a personal letter and urged him to reconsider that decision.

So when pairing Bush with Obama, at least give due consideration to the facts at hand.

Tidewater · Aug 18, 2014

TIDE-HSV said:
Good post. I'm of the opinion, as I was in the beginning, that Iraq would be divided in three parts. I just didn't visualize it's happening in this manner. The Sunnis in ISIS have taken far more than they historically occupied. I think the Kurds, with some help, will take back what was theirs. I think some of our leaders just were ignorant of history of the area. In a way, I could excuse our stupidity. The British were a different story for following us in. After all, they tried to govern Iraq for 20 years and lost 20,000 men. They had no excuse...

I always believed that a Saddam-like dictator would rise up, knock a few skulls, restore order and go on to an unbelievable string of electoral victors.
The break-up scenario is looking more likely now than it was a couple of years ago. When the US advises others to adopt a federal arrangement, we argue that it is best to leave local matters to local government and only handle at the highest level those things that need national administration (defense, diplomacy, etc.). Unfortunately, our own history undermines that argument. Our national government did not respect limits placed on its power for very long and now it tells local authorities in excruciatingly minute detail what rights and powers they (local authorities) retain. Iraqi Sunnis, who would be a minority in a federal Iraq, would be wise to observe the American precedents.
If Iraq does break up into Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan, we'd better hope Assad wins his civil war. If the islamic weirdos win in Syria, Iraqi Sunnistan may want to join ISIL in Syria creating a Greater Weirdostan.

TIDE-HSV · Aug 18, 2014

Tidewater said:
I always believed that a Saddam-like dictator would rise up, knock a few skulls, restore order and go on to an unbelievable string of electoral victors.
The break-up scenario is looking more likely now than it was a couple of years ago. When the US advises others to adopt a federal arrangement, we argue that it is best to leave local matters to local government and only handle at the highest level those things that need national administration (defense, diplomacy, etc.). Unfortunately, our own history undermines that argument. Our national government did not respect limits placed on its power for very long and now it tells local authorities in excruciatingly minute detail what rights and powers they (local authorities) retain. Iraqi Sunnis, who would be a minority in a federal Iraq, would be wise to observe the American precedents.
If Iraq does break up into Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan, we'd better hope Assad wins his civil war. If the islamic weirdos win in Syria, Iraqi Sunnistan may want to join ISIL in Syria creating a Greater Weirdostan.

You've touched on a point which has been puzzling to me all along. Assad had fought the rebels to standstill and yet they somehow retained enough man and firepower to turn east and sweep across Iraq. I know the Iraqi army cut and ran, but still. Also, there is the point that the US dragged its feet about arming the rebels and tried to render what little aid we did to moderates, but you can't ever be sure where a gun will end up. I wonder how some of the countries (France, for example) which poured armaments in to the Syrian rebels feel about the use their arms were put to in the end. It's almost as if the rebels decided they couldn't break the stalemate with Assad, looked east and saw an easier target...

Tidewater · Aug 18, 2014

TIDE-HSV said:
You've touched on a point which has been puzzling to me all along. Assad had fought the rebels to standstill and yet they somehow retained enough man and firepower to turn east and sweep across Iraq. I know the Iraqi army cut and ran, but still. Also, there is the point that the US dragged its feet about arming the rebels and tried to render what little aid we did to moderates, but you can't ever be sure where a gun will end up. I wonder how some of the countries (France, for example) which poured armaments in to the Syrian rebels feel about the use their arms were put to in the end. It's almost as if the rebels decided they couldn't break the stalemate with Assad, looked east and saw an easier target...

There is a scene from Lawrence of Arabia in which the Arab army asks for guns so they could take on the Turks on a more level playing field.
The American journalist tells Prince Faisal that denying the Arabs was intended to keep the Arabs limited.
If you give them weapons (then and now), they become independent, even when they change their politics. If you provide them fire support or air support, it helps, it limits the danger to western troops, and, if they change their politics (and start beheading people) you can always turn it off.

Tidewater · Jan 4, 2017

I must enter my solemn protest ... against pledging protection to any government established in [a foreign country] under our countenance or encouragement. It would inevitably be overthrown as soon as our forces are withdrawn, and we would compelled, in fulfillment of plighted faith, implied or expressed, to return and reinstate such government in power to be again overturned and again reinstated until we should be compelled to take the government into our own hands … I must say I am at a loss to see how a free and independent republic can be established in [a foreign country] under the protection and authority of its conquerors. I can readily understand how an aristocracy or a despotic government might be, but how a free republican government can be so established, under such circumstances, is to me incomprehensible. I had always supposed that such a government must be the spontaneous wish of the people; that it must emanate from the hearts of the people, and be supported by their devotion to it, without support from abroad. But it seems that these are antiquated notions—obsolete ideas—and that free popular governments may be made under the authority and protection of a conqueror.

I ran across this quote recently and thought to myself that this guy must have been something of a prophet.

Tidewater · Jan 4, 2017

We make a great mistake in supposing that all people are capable of self-government. Acting under that impression, many are anxious to force free governments on all the people of ... the world, if they had the power. It has been lately urged in a very respectable quarter, that it is the mission of our country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the globe ... — even by force, if necessary. It is a sad delusion.

Same guy. Same speech.

"Losing Iraq" documentary PBS Frontline

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

FB Moderator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Senior Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!