atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#4328: And again, because Democrats want to make political points, a lot of people die.

Fall of Saigon.

Khmer Rouge.

Killing fields of Cambodia.

Pol Pot.

ISIS.

It was so important to Obama that he keep his campaign promise to get American troops out of Iraq, he announced it to the world that we'd be out completely by a certain date, and the criticisms of this stupid plan by smarter people were denounced as mere racism.

So the US got out on schedule, leaving a power vacuum, which has now been filled by ISIS. Yeah.

Much the same way, in the early 1970s, the Democrat party was insistent on not dignifying Nixon's advances in ending the conflict in Vietnam on terms that were acceptable to the US, the Democrats of today have managed to pull defeat from the jaws of victory because it garnered them a few points with their die-hard supporters. And to hell with all the little brown people that the policy ends up killing, because after all they don't vote in our elections, now, do they?

So here we are with a bunch of dead or dying people, and Obama is continuing to laze around Washington, D.C., making his best possible effort at voting "present" in dealing with the crisis he himself was instrumental in creating.

It's not just that Obama's foreign policy is inept; it's cavalier. He doesn't care about the effects that his decisions have, as long as he gets what he wants. He doesn't fret over his bad decisions, because the consequences of his bad decisions don't have any effect on anyone he cares about. (Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, anyone besides himself and a few people close to him.)

The real problem is that there is no way for us to have left Iraq in any kind of condition to self-govern in a reasonable fashion. This kind of result was inevitable, because Iraq's culture is not founded on the egalitarian principles of western civilization. The conflict in Iraq is settling out along tribal boundaries, the same ones that it has occurred across for fifteen hundred years. Even splitting Iraq into three separate countries would not have solved this problem. In order for Iraq to remain relatively peaceful and democratic, we either would have had to station troops there ad infinitum, or else we would have had to accept an enormous body count in the pacification of the country and the elimination of all opposition. Neither alternative is attractive.

In order to end the conflicts in the middle east, it is necessary first to wipe out most of islam. Islam is the problem, and as long as islamists find it acceptable to settle their differences with violence, this kind of nonsense will continue. The only way to demonstrate that to islam is to kill all the hard-liners and fundamentalists, or at least to kill enough of them that the rest are scared straight.

This is, however, politically difficult, because it would mean an enormous body count, and it would consist of men, women, and children. Vietnam on steroids. I am certainly not comfortable with the idea of my country committing that kind of violence.

The other alternative is for the US to wash its hands of the middle east entirely and let them fight it out, to the last man if needed. This is what I advocate; the US should take its petrodollars and leave, and let the various factions of islam duke it out. We have enough oil, from domestic sources, that we don't need to buy oil from the middle east, and the severe reduction in American money flowing through arab hands will limit their ability to cause trouble for us. Meanwhile, the rest of the world will take up the slack, and there will be no shortage of foreign cash for the sheiks to dole out on the sly to this and that terror organization. Eventually there will be a clear winner; and if they are sophisticated enough for us to deal with, we can do that. Otherwise, if they cause us too much trouble, we can wipe their shit out without having to pussyfoot around.

It remains so that the only advantage conferred by the war in Iraq (starting in 2003) is that it focused the eyes of islamic terror on a place other than the United States. Instead of hitting targets here in the USA they concentrated on hitting targets in Iraq. They spent a lot of time, money, and energy on fighting the US military in Iraq, effort which otherwise would have been expended here. That is the sole good news that comes from the Bush Doctrine.

Having gone into Iraq, having brought down the Hussein government, we had an obligation to try to fix things, and we had an obligation to stay until the government could function well enough on its own that troops were no longer needed. That was going to take a lot of time, though, and even if Obama had waited until 2016 to pull out of Iraq, it would not have been long enough. To do it right would have taken decades. There's a precedent; we helped Europe and Japan rebuild and we still have bases there.

Otherwise, it would have been better just to leave Saddam Hussein in power. He was a skunk--of that there can be no doubt--but the modern notion that the United States can only support people who are angels has caused more human misery in the last forty years than just about anything other than communism. We have the problem now that we have with islamic terrorism because Carter couldn't be fucked to support the Shah of Iran when he needed help. The Shah was a dictator, but he was a pro-US dictator, and he kept the lid on a shitty part of the world for us.

Funding the NKVD--giving them war materiel so they could defend themselves from the Viet Cong--was a small price to pay for some modicum of stability in southeast Asia, and when we stopped doing that--because the Democrats didn't want to let Ford have any kind of victory--it led to political murders by the millions at the hands of leftists. Not just in Vietnam, but elsewhere, like Cambodia.

We have the problem with islamic terrorism now because a whole bunch of Democrat foreign policy decisions led us to where we are. ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, the rest of them all are problems for us and our allies because it's more important to Democrats that they have things their way, regardless of how much death and misery results. It's just too bad for the people on that mountain, but We Had To Get Out Of Iraq Because President Obama Promised.

...and he can't be fucked to keep his other campaign promises. And now, while the middle east burns, he plays golf.
Subscribe

  • #7607: Oh, yeah

    Had another opportunity today to play Pat Metheney's "Spring Ain't Here", because it snowed for most of the morning. But yeah, "global warming"…

  • #7606: LOOTING IS NOT PROTEST

    Some fatuous pinhead on the radio said that Chicago was ready for "looting and other forms of protest". But you know what? It's fine. We no longer…

  • #7605: I don't even need lettuce any longer

    See, the tacos I make at home blow away any tacos I've ever had anywhere else. Lettuce used to be necessary, but now it just gets in the way, so I…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments