Yes. At least it became so, once George Bush decided our mission was no longer defeating Muslim terrorism, but instead imposing Democracy on the heathen savages.
How in the hell does a shit-bag country like Iran manage to kick our ass for forty years?
And speaking of idiots….
One obvious possible response here is for Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and maybe even Egypt to send troops to Iraq to crush ISIS. The jihadis are hugely outnumbered: Combined, the Iraqi army and the Kurdish peshmerga in the country top them more than 30 to one. Add multinational Sunni troops and the ratio would skyrocket. I assume it won’t happen, though, partly because the Sunnis would rather let Iran bleed some more in handling this and partly because they may be nervous about being thin on troops at home at a moment when Islamists are running wild in Iraq. The local Islamists might seize on the security vacuum as an opportunity for mass protests or worse, which could destabilize the country. In the eternal game of Middle Eastern jihadi whack-a-mole, there are always more moles. And even if the Sunni states managed to keep order at home, what happens once they’re done with ISIS in Iraq? Do they go home, or push on into Syria to fight ISIS there — which could eventually lead to a direct confrontation between Iran, on Assad’s side, and the multinational Sunnis on the other?
Right. The Sunni states are going to oppose the very Sunni jihadis they’re financing, arming, and otherwise supporting. Allahpundit has been out in the sun too long. Which, given his nom de stupide, probably figures.
But then, for all his silly name, Allahpundit has never demonstrated much of a grasp of what is actually going on in the Muslim world.
I, on the other hand, wrote this nearly eight years ago (!!!), and it was by no means my first time describing the untenable situation in Iraq this way:
The cloud of depression and, well, boredom that descends over me as I start to comment on yet another news story about the “war” (in Iraq? on terror? on the “Axis of Evil”? on “the most dangerous nations with the most deadly weapons”?) is palpable. I’m just tired of writing about this. I’ve been saying for years that our enemies are regimes like Iran, Iraq under Saddam, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. They are the source of funds, training, support, supply, and manpower for the Moslem barbarians who are waging war on us, each other, and anybody else who gets in the way.
The obvious solution – to destroy or frighten those regimes into ending their support for Islamic terror gangs – is equally obviously not going to be attempted. What we are witnessing now is a dumbshow on everybodys’ part, an attempt to obscure what is really going on – a major defeat for the United States brought on by our own leadership, more specifically, our own lack of leadership.
Here’s the truth: George W. Bush, an oilman from a family of oilmen with extremely close ties to the Saudi royal family, is not going to do anything that might cause another “oil shock..” Given that Iranian-backed terrorists have demonstrated they can close off Iraqi oil production at will, Bush is terrified of anything that might force Iran to use the “oil weapon.” He believes that $150 dollar per barrel oil will bring down our economy and his political career with it, and he may be right. And it is primarily because of this calculation that I believe he has never had any intention of taking on the mullahs. His great effort was always going to begin and end with Iraq, because I suspect he had guarantees from the Saudis (who were terrified of Saddam) that they would support the world oil supply while Bush made his move against Saddam, motivated in large part (on a personal basis) by the desire for revenge for the attempt to assassinate Bush’s father.
But there was never anything in this understanding that involved “remaking the middle east.” Nor was there anything about forcing the Saudis to clean their own Wahabbist house, nor about taking on the Mullahs. I think everybody wanted Saddam gone, for reasons of realpolitik, but that’s all they wanted. Anything stronger was simply not on the menu, in fact, never was, not for the leaders of the middle east, and not for Bush himself.
So we set ourselves up to fail, by starting a war with Iraq under rules that guarAnanteed we could not win.
And here we are now, and boy, is it depressing. Bush, of couse, will blame any disaster on the change in congressional leadership in the last two years of his lame duck term, rather than on the fact that his egregious non-leadership and his decision to wage a “war” without actually fighting our real enemies guaranteed that we could not win.
And, frankly, I’m tired of pointing that out, over and over and over again. During the past two years I’ve faced down everybody from Steven Den Beste to anonymous Bushbots over this issue, and all their wishful thinking has turned to dust. We are headed for defeat, just as I said we were, and it is now too late to do anything about it. And that would have happened no matter who is in charge of Congress, because there is no will in Washington today, nor has there ever been, for waging the kind of war that could bring us victory.
That will eventually will come – but the body count on America’s shores will have to be considerably higher than it was on 9/11 before the “rationally ignorant,” the anti-war factions, the left-wing, and the Republican-haters finally understand that they are as much targets as everybody else, and pretending that the barbarian savage wing of Islam can be appeased only guarantees their own incineration as well.
Boy, I hate Mondays.
I repeat: I wrote this almost eight years ago!
That was in 2006, two years before American distaste for GWB’s botched war in Iraq swept a formerly unknown Senator from Illinois into office with super-majorities in both the House and the Senate.
Today, as Iraq crumbles into the rubble of the battleground between Saudi Arabia and Iran that it has always been, Obama supporters are blaming Bush for going into Iraq in the first place as the cause of today’s problems (trivially correct, but irrelevant – and stupid), while Republicans are blaming Obama for not keeping a massive US military presence in Iraq indefinitely – and indefinitely at war with surrogates sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Iran in this latest confrontation in the millennium-long war between Shia and Sunni.
The bottom line in all this is that Obama pulled the troops out of Iraq because the Bush/GOP/Neocon proposition that we should keep 100,000 troops there indefinitely, or at least until the Iraqi population became fully “democratized” (in other words, indefinitely), while bleeding several thousand casualties a year was untenable. And in this Obama was correct. The Iraqi Democracy Project was an obvious failure, and no amount of bleatiing for Surge Two or Surge Three or Surge Four (all would have been inevitable had we stayed) was going to make that failure vanish.
When push came to shove, the Iraqi people did not want democracy, except as a path to a sharia Muslim theocracy. That given, the only question was which branch of Islam – Shia or Sunni – would triumph in the battle to control that theocracy.
A Shai win – and the Shia are the huge majority of Muslims in Iraq – would guarantee that Iraq becomes a surrogate of Iran. Sunni-led Saudi Arabia could not tolerate this, and so the Oilbags (and other Sunni players) financed and armed the latest iteration of their tool Al-Qaeda, now calling itself ISIS, to oppose the Shia and Iran.
You didn’t think that ISIS came up with all that weaponry, training camps, and financing by holding bake sales, did you?
And, of course, the Bush-established “democracy” led by Maliki was about as democratic as any other governing body in the Islam world, that is, brutal, corrupt, tribal, and tyrannical, and was, in fact, so awful that it’s own armies threw down their arms and fled in the face of ISIS and their jeeps and pickup trucks, rather than stand and fight for “democracy.”
So here’s where we stand now: We were never willing to engage the two drivers of global Islamic terror, Iran and Saudi Arabia (although Pakistan is moving up fast these days), and instead settled for a strategy in which we soothed ourselves with the notion that if we could just establish “democracy” in Iraq, this would inevitably lead to the fall of Islamofascism in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Only Americans could be both gutless and gullible enough to fall for a load of hokum like that. As a strategy it as always been an easily predictable failure – particularly since we left its two strongest enemies, Saudi Arabia and Iran – in place to oppose it and do everything possible to destroy it. And now the whole thing is falling apart, to the great surprise of absolutely nobody who actually paid attention to what was going on.
We are not sending troops back into Iraq. George W. Bush poisoned that well for a generation. We will be gone from Afghanistan shortly, and then the laughable “democracy” there will fall to the Taliban.
We lost, because we never fought to win. All those American deaths were a despicable sham, because those men were sacrificed in a “conflict” American never intended to fight with Islamic terror in general.
The gamble here is now the unspoken conviction in America’s Ruling Class and Ruling Party is that Islamic terror itself can pose no threat to Americans here at home (the only threat I care about) or our feckless allies. Time will tell on that, but it is predicated on the notion that retreat, surrender, and appeasement will somehow turn the threat of Terrorist Islam toward targets other than ourselves.
My guess is that will be a gamble we’ll lose, but simply because that conclusion seems obvious doesn’t gainsay the ability of the Ruling Class to sniff a pile of shit and smell roses. Of of the American people to support them in doing so.