You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
As Iraq unravels, so does Obama's political Image
2014-06-13
[WASHINGTONEXAMINER] President B.O., who rode his opposition to the Iraq War straight into the White House, isn't so eager to talk about the conflict there anymore.

The chaos just outside Storied Baghdad has the potential to puncture Obama's carefully crafted narrative, even more than the civil war in Syria or Russian aggression in Ukraine, because his political Image is more closely linked to Iraq than any foreign policy issue.

The capture of djinn-infested Mosul
... the home of a particularly ferocious and hairy djinn...
 and Tikrit by faceless myrmidons tied to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has once again called into question whether Obama is quick enough to deploy U.S. resources that could deter instability abroad -- a point that even some of the president's allies acknowledged.

"This is a huge deal," a former Obama counterterrorism adviser told the Washington Examiner. "You can't really overstate how big Iraq is when it comes to perceptions of the president. His arguments aren't nearly as persuasive if the entire country is in shambles."

Just this week, Obama's aides cited his handling of Iraq as among his greatest foreign policy accomplishments. In the 2012 presidential debates, Obama mocked Republican rival Willard Mitt Romney
...former governor of Massachussetts, the Publican nominee for president in 2012. He is the son of the former governor of Michigan, George Romney, who himself ran for president after saving American Motors from failure, though not permanently. Romney has a record as a successful businessman, heading Bain Capital, and he rescued the 2002 Winter Olympics from the midst of bribery and mismanagement scandals....
 for even suggesting his administration should have left more U.S. troops behind in Iraq. And in 2008, then-Sen. Obama used his disapproval of the Iraq War to win over progressives wary of frontrunner Hillary Clinton
... sometimes described as The Liberatress of Libya and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another Walter Q. Gresham ...
.

With turbans now marching toward Storied Baghdad, the GOP has pounced on the instability as proof of Obama's naivety about a region spiraling out of control.

The president on Thursday said he was not ruling out the possibility of Arclight airstrikes in Iraq, a sign of just how dramatically his calculations there have shifted. The Iraqi government has been pushing for some form of air support from the B.O. regime with little success.
Posted by:Fred

#15  Germany and Japan were different but remember, we still have boots on the ground in Germany and up until recently in Japan as well. We might not ever get them out of Germany and if we do what are chances they'd be going at it with France or Russia some time shortly afterward? And in Japan that old Chinese bugaboo is getting worrisome again.

Is the oil worth the blood? That's the question. How about we stay home this time and drill, baby, drill?
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2014-06-13 15:46  

#14  France, 1789.

Really? Who denied them the time? The English? On the other hand, Cromwell had a decade and the kings still came back. On the other hand, the Kurds seem to be doing pretty well in spite of being caught between the Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians without any time to consolidate.

We broke some eggs, we should have stayed, but it's unlikely we could have turned the Iraqis into the arab SORKs in 50 years. It's that cultural thing. But at least we'd have been able to keep our intelligence networks together and have a place to surge from.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2014-06-13 15:45  

#13  It would have taken us a hundred years in Vietnam and even then it might not have worked. Same thing in Afghanistan. I was foolish enough at one time to believe there was hope for Iraq but no such luck. Some things, some places and some people just aren't worth it. Let's just be glad that it's happening on Obama's watch so we get to watch him squirm with it.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2014-06-13 15:40  

#12  ...just as a point, during the Cold War we'd lose several troops a week in Europe due to traffic accidents, training accidents, motor pool accidents, etc. No one got too worked up about that other than the command with an investigation, determination if any liability existed, and a need for any remedial action if necessary.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2014-06-13 13:29  

#11  Iraq needed, and needs today, a decade (at least) of external and internal security guarantees.
Part of that never-to-be-accomplished security guarantee would have been massive American expenditures and losing an American squad a month, or so, for 10+ MORE years. (Also necessary in Afghanistan). The US electorate, left, right, center, etc., would not put up with that.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418    2014-06-13 13:10  

#10  I think it was Wretchard at Belmont Club who termed it "the mierdas touch.'
Posted by: Sgt. Mom   2014-06-13 11:51  

#9  Obama has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to shit.
Posted by: Iblis   2014-06-13 10:33  

#8  No SOFA agreement, no problem. Meet your new Military Governor, US Army General Smith. He'll be on hand to sign the SOFA agreement and issue the cards. If you arrest or detain one of our people, we will kill you. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Besoeker   2014-06-13 09:28  

#7  IIRC the legitimate Iraqi government was unwilling to extend out troop presence without unacceptable shackles, which pretty much forced Obama to withdraw. That's the kind of situation adult diplomacy is designed to deal with: it did not.
Posted by: Glenmore   2014-06-13 09:21  

#6  There has always been a problem of tribal conflict in this region. I'm not sure a decade of tranquility would be enough to over-ride these internecine tribal frictions. Hard to get optimistic when the local history is reviewed. Maybe it would work. Obummer was never committed to the long run.
Posted by: JohnQC   2014-06-13 09:13  

#5  The Iraqi government was NOT destined to unravel. In early January, 2009, it had American troops to ensure it didn't go too far in repressing people, and American troops to give people a sense of security. The Iraqis were proving themselves to be well ahead of their new government in their willingness to rebuild their country. The Sunnis were calming down (since American troops guaranteed that the Shi'a government wouldn't oppress them), Shi'a were calm (since American troops guaranteed that Sunni militants wouldn't blow them up) and Kurds were calm (because American troops and their own militia guaranteed that everyone else would leave them the heck alone). Iraq was being given a chance and was taking advantage of it.

Then we left.

Every major change in governance -- EVERY one -- needs time to consolidate. The American revolution needed a decade as British loyalists moved to Canada and new political leaders took charge. We had the time as no outside power molested us. Germany and Japan after WWII had major changes, and through American guarantees of their security had the time to do so. Ditto South Korea. To see what happens when one doesn't get the time, look at Poland, 1946, South Vietnam, 1974, or France, 1789.

Iraq needed, and needs today, a decade (at least) of external and internal security guarantees. Then representative democracy WOULD take hold. It's unfortunate that Iraq's own security forces aren't able to hold together (again, look at South Vietnam, 1974). But that's life.

We broke the eggs, we should have stayed for the omelette.
Posted by: Steve White   2014-06-13 08:46  

#4  The Messiah, and the thrill up your leg. And the Grecian Columns. The Smartest man in the room who will bring us all to transparency and amity. The NBC, prog dream come true.

There is a Bluelight special in aisle six at Walmart, why don't you bend way over and pick it up in your Spandex.... and while you are down there.... be sure to vote Democrat.

Oh... and don't forget the wonders of Hope and Change.
Posted by: Big Thromoth3646   2014-06-13 07:28  

#3  Zero isn't running for anything more (I don't think) so what difference, at this point, does his political image matter? Hillary's image ought to be getting hammered, but she still has a media pass, plus she got out before it all fell apart, so she can blame Kerry. Besides, as I am continually reminded, "It's all Bush's fault" - that excuse never seems to expire.
Posted by: Glenmore   2014-06-13 07:25  

#2  The ONE has never had a foreign policy. For that matter he has never had a domestic policy other than to assiduously undermine the country. Why would anyone be surprised at the unraveling of Iraq? Hildebeast is not the answer; she is part and parcel of this same mentality as Obama. She's in politics for one reason--she is cut from the same narcissistic cloth that Obama is. I hope women in this country don't go wobbly just to elect a women for the sole reason as to plow new ground. They need to ask: "How did that work out when Obama was elected?"
Posted by: JohnQC   2014-06-13 07:22  

#1  The master strategist strikes again. To everyone who is upset about loosing Iraq after putting so much in, the message his 'O'ness sends is the same as his well thought out ACA health plan:
Your little lives are meaningless to me.
Posted by: ed in texas   2014-06-13 07:17  

00:00