McCain calls for resignation of entire White House national security team over Iraq

posted at 1:31 pm on June 12, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

As an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist army sweeps across Syria into the heart of Iraq and the US dithers on whether to intervene, John McCain launched a broadside against the Obama administration from the Senate floor earlier today. McCain demanded the immediate resignation of the entire White House national security team, advising Barack Obama that he has been “ill served” by their advice and their decisions. McCain urged that anyone who declared the withdrawal from Iraq a success should be canned, which would include Obama himself, although McCain stopped short of that demand:

McCain blames Obama and his national security team for the rout by withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq and calling back the generals he called the successful architects of security in the war-ravaged country.

McCain specifically called for the resignation of Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“The first thing is get rid of this national security team, which has been a total failure,” he said told reporters ahead of a classified Senate Armed Services briefing on the security situation in Iraq. “[They] called back in people who succeeded in Iraq like General Petraeus, General Mattis, many of the other leaders —General Keane, who’s the architect of the surge. …

“Get rid of his entire national security team, the same ones who said we’re safely out of Iraq,” he added.

McCain isn’t alone in condemning the Obama administration for its pretense of victory in Iraq. General James Dubik, who commanded forces in Iraq in 2007-8, accused the US of allowing a power vacuum to develop in Iraq with our disengagement, which only “pretended” that the war in Iraq was over in 2011:

The war in Iraq was not over when the United States withdrew from Iraq in 2011. We just pretended that it was. Like it or not, our departure left a diplomatic and security vacuum that contributed to the crisis unfolding there. The government of Iraq floundered in that vacuum, promulgating the wrong domestic policies and allowing the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to backslide to pre-2007 performance levels. The net result has been that Al-Qaeda in Iraq has not only reconstituted but expanded, drawing in many of those disenfranchised and disillusioned by Iraq’s domestic policies. Worse, it has morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), whose stated ambition is to create a new Islamic state, absorbing parts of Syria and Iraq. As the past few days have amply demonstrated, ISIS is already more than capable of taking territory and governing.

In much of eastern Syria, ISIS serves as the de facto government. Is it advancing rapidly into northern, central and western Iraq. This week it seized Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city; most of Baiji, home of one of the largest oil facilities in Iraq; and Tikrit. Now it is moving south toward Samarra and Baqubah, en route to Baghdad. It is already entrenched in Fallujah and Ramadi as well as in most of Iraq’s western desert. Its terror campaigns are destabilizing Baghdad and threatening Salahuddin, Tamin and Diyala provinces — the territory between Mosul and Baghdad that it wants to seize next.

While we have been debating whether ISIS fits our definition of a threat, the on-the-ground realities have been passing us by. If ISIS achieves its goal, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran will have a radical, fundamentalist Islamic state on their borders. Iraq will be split in two, Israel threatened and the security of the United States and the rest of the West put at significantly greater risk. The question isn’t whether ISIS is part of al-Qaeda. Rather, the question for the United States and its allies is: Do we keep pretending that the war is over or acknowledge that events in Iraq are rapidly moving in a direction at odds with our security interests? What’s our plan? …

Halting the offensive is Iraq’s nearest-term objective. What is needed is a coordinated air and ground action consisting of both a heavy dose of precisely applied firepower and a sufficiently executed ground defensive. The Iraqis are incapable of such action alone. The firepower will have to be delivered by United States and allied aircraft augmented by Iraqi assets. The Iraqis will also need a small group of advisers to target air support correctly and to help identify or create capable, well-led units that are properly employed and backed by sufficient sustainment capacity. The advisory and support effort must be substantial enough to help the Iraqis conduct an initial defense and then plan and prepare a series of counter-offensive campaigns to regain lost areas. This will be a multi-year effort, but it cannot become a second surge.

In other words, we need to re-engage militarily, and in a significant way — not just with a few drone strikes. Dubik considers the re-introduction of a large American and/or coalition ground force to be impractical, and that’s certainly true in the near term logistically, and in the longer term politically. But Dubik lays out the threat accurately, and that requires some sort of response from the Obama administration.

However, the current national-security team still seems incapable of grasping the threat. That makes McCain’s suggestion all the more valid. We need a national security team that understands that wars end when all sides stop fighting, and not merely when we leave. And that’s a lesson that has even more application in Afghanistan than in Iraq, and the Taliban 5 swap proves that this national security team still hasn’t figured it out.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I’m with johnny on this one. Go get em! Grrr…

Akzed on June 12, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Come on Johnny. You told us we don’t have to be afraid of an Obama presidency.

stenwin77 on June 12, 2014 at 1:33 PM

John, this is what happens at the end of wars.

de rigueur on June 12, 2014 at 1:34 PM

I’m with McCain on this one – 100%.

Wow – I just said that.

jake-the-goose on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

However, the current national-security team still seems incapable of grasping the threat.

But I heard on CBS News that Ben Rhodes is doing a bangup job. What gives?

Akzed on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

We’ve known all this forever. If you walk away from a war what do you think is going to happen? It will be the same in Afghanistan.

Missy on June 12, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Geez, next thing you’ll know, the U.S.will be militarily supporting Assad in Syria to hold back ISIS from forming their new Syria-Iraq state.

parke on June 12, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Wow. Dude. What?

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Why is it the only time McCain finds his conservative ballz it happens to be about war?

John, this is what happens at the end of wars peace keeping missions when you need an all out war.

de rigueur on June 12, 2014 at 1:34 PM

FIFY

melle1228 on June 12, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Mission Unaccomplished banner flying above White House today…

hillsoftx on June 12, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Tough cookies. Obama campaigned for the job of taking over two wars. No one forced him or any other Dem to do that. He’s the one who has abandoned Iraq (and soon, Afghanistan).

Missy on June 12, 2014 at 1:37 PM

You’ve got it all WRONG Ed!

Just IGNORE the problem! See? Then it’s NOT a problem.

SMART POWER!

GarandFan on June 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM

The national security team is a bunch of lackeys, hacks, flacks and flunkies anyway, from head to toe.

Esaus Message on June 12, 2014 at 1:39 PM

I blame this YouTube video.

PackerBronco on June 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM

All I know is, it is not Dear Leader’s fault….

d1carter on June 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Whatever you think of invading Iraq, it doesn’t excuse Obama’s incompetence thereafter.

Chuck Schick on June 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Too little, too late, Juan. Instead of meaningless grandstanding, you could have fought in 2008 to prevent King Putt from ascending the throne. You didn’t, so GFY.

Ted the Average on June 12, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Well, well, well… Harry Reid was right. It just took a Democrat in the presidency to make it so.

Fallon on June 12, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

It could have, and yet we did.

Your president had six years to show us the better way, and right now it’s on the verge of becoming Afghanistan 2.0. Good job guys! By totally abandoning Iraq and leaving it to flounder after all the blood shed to finally pacify it in 2007-2008, you sure showed those “warmongers!”

At least now you’ll be able to do some endzone dances about how “Bush was wrong all along,” in spite of Bush being gone from power for almost six years.

Doomberg on June 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Translation: My President is SO incompetent, that even SIX years after his was elected I continue to blame the President before him

BOOOOOOOSSSHHHH

melle1228 on June 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Obama released the leader of the AlQaeda (ISIS) group in 2009.

Obama armed and funded this group.

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM

The national security team is a bunch of lackeys, hacks, flacks and flunkies anyway, from head to toe.

Esaus Message on June 12, 2014 at 1:39 PM

That could describe the whole of Bammy’s admin and every feral government dept.

hawkeye54 on June 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Face it, folks. Iraq will never be a free, democratic country. At least not in our lifetimes. While I agree that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a worthy goal, any desire to transform that nation was a false hope.

While I am sad to see what is happening once again to the people of that country, nothing will be served by our going back in. Unless we are prepared to stay there forever, the same thing will happen again the moment we withdraw. It’s an unwinnable situation.

Shump on June 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Forget it. No money and no troops for Iraq unless it’s part of a real global coalition.

jim56 on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Translation: My President is SO incompetent, that even SIX years after his was elected I continue to blame the President before him

BOOOOOOOSSSHHHH

melle1228 on June 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM

If he can still sell it to the LIVs, why not?

hawkeye54 on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

BTW, I am sure Obama and his administration will just redline and hashtag those terrorist right out of Tikrit and Mosul.

melle1228 on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

McCain demanded the immediate resignation of the entire White House national security team, advising Barack Obama that he has been “ill served” by their advice and their decisions.

Obama is not being ill-served if they are telling him what he wants to hear. Don’t forget, he said he can do all these jobs better than anyone around him.

monalisa on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

All those men will have died in vain. Not sure what to do now. I was against the war back in 2002, but that does not matter now, except as a means of deflecting from Obama’s failure today. Fighting the war and then losing the peace to terrorists so awful other terrorists are scared to death of them is a disaster rivaling Vietnam.

Ted Torgerson on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

“Get rid of his entire national security team, the same ones who said we’re safely out of Iraq,” he added.

Didn’t that “safely out of Iraq” team include your old drinking buddy Hillary?

Wethal on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

The national security team is a bunch of lackeys, hacks, flacks and flunkies anyway, from head to toe.

Esaus Message on June 12, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Yeah, but they play a mean game of beer pong.

de rigueur on June 12, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Put some ice on it, John. You lost, remember?

stenwin77 on June 12, 2014 at 1:44 PM

But we still have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency, right Johnny?

AZCoyote on June 12, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Is that the best ya got??!!

The current President spent the better part of 2 years campaigning and raising and spending close to a billion dollars to be elected to a position that comes with responsibilities beyond arranging the next foursome.

And then he did it again in 2012!

If this presidentin’ thing is too hard for him because all these real world events are getting in the way, then maybe he really is not up to the job.

can_con on June 12, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Forget it. No money and no troops for Iraq unless it’s part of a real global coalition.

jim56 on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

What exactly is a “real” global coalition?

NATO: A contingent of around 150 advisers under the separate command NATO Training Mission – Iraq-(withdrawn 12/11)
United States: 150,000 invasion 165,000 peak-(withdrawn 12/11)
United Kingdom: 46,000 invasion (withdrawn 5/11)
Australia: 2,000 invasion (withdrawn 7/09)
Romania: 730 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/09)
El Salvador: 380 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 1/09)
Estonia: 40 troops (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 1/09)
Bulgaria: 485 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Moldova: 24 peak (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Albania: 240 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Ukraine: 1,650 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Denmark: 545 peak (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Czech Republic: 300 peak (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
South Korea: 3,600 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Japan: 600 troops (deployed 1/04-withdrawn 12/08)
Tonga: 55 troops (deployed 7/04-withdrawn 12/08)
Azerbaijan: 250 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Singapore: 175 offshore (deployed 12/03-withdrawn 12/08)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 85 peak (deployed 6/05-withdrawn 11/08)
Macedonia: 77 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/08)
Latvia: 136 peak (deployed 5/03-withdrawn 11/08)
Poland: 200 invasion—2,500 peak (withdrawn 10/08)
Kazakhstan: 29 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 10/08)
Armenia: 46 troops (deployed 1/05-withdrawn 10/08)
Mongolia: 180 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 09/08)
Georgia: 2,000 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/08)
Slovakia: 110 peak (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 12/07)
Lithuania: 120 peak (deployed 6/03-withdrawn 08/07)
Italy: 3,200 peak (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 11/06)
Norway: 150 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 8/06)
Hungary: 300 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 3/05)
Netherlands: 1,345 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 3/05)
Portugal: 128 troops (deployed 11/03-withdrawn 2/05)
New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
Thailand: 423 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 8/04)
Philippines: 51 troops (deployed 7/03-withdrawn 7/04)
Honduras: 368 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
Dominican Republic: 302 troops (deployed 8/03-withdrawn 5/04)
Spain: 1,300 troops (deployed 4/03-withdrawn 4/04)
Nicaragua: 230 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 2/04)
Iceland: 2 troops (deployed 5/03-withdrawal date

melle1228 on June 12, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Forget it. No money and no troops for Iraq unless it’s part of a real global coalition.

jim56 on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Meh, Bammy’s more inclined to spend that money on the muslim global coalition, not an opposing coalition.

hawkeye54 on June 12, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Okay, just watched the video.

He tells the overgrown teenager to fire his national security team because he has been “ill-served” by it. What a joke McCain is. He really believes this? What a senile idiot.

Ted the Average on June 12, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Forget it. No money and no troops for Iraq unless it’s part of a real global coalition.

jim56 on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Why would we need that? Obama ended the war in Iraq. He said so himself.

Chuck Schick on June 12, 2014 at 1:46 PM

The entire American national security team, including Barack Obama, should indeed be sacked, for not defending the nation.

George P. Shultz (in my opinion America’s best ever Secretary of State) had a trick he liked to do when sending off an ambassador to his post. He would spin a globe and ask the new ambassador to point to his country. If the new ambassador pointed to the country he was being sent to, he failed. The way to pass was to point to America. In other words, whatever the problems of the country you reside in, the most important thing for you to remember is that your country is the USA and your duty is to the American nation. Don’t get co-opted.

The country the national security team should be protecting is the USA. Defending Iraq is infinitely less important than defending the USA. The unopposed mass immigration invasion of America matters, and which Arabs kill each other in some irrelevant, distant city matters very little by comparison.

It is a sick joke that John McCain, a man who shows passion for defending the borders of nearly every country but his own, gets treated as some sort of security expert. He doesn’t understand the simplest thing.

Of course, neither does Barack Obama.

David Blue on June 12, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Wait, wait. I haven’t read about this AQ invasion in the NYT.

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Are we saying that Dear Leader’s plan for NASA is not working…

d1carter on June 12, 2014 at 1:47 PM

I’m a fan of Ed Morrissey. I enjoy his columns and interviews.

BUT! I no longer care what John McCain has to say on any topic, at any time. IMO McCain is non compos mentis.

McCain is now used as a pet by the Senate Democrats and the media. Conservative bloggers and media should not trot him out to do tricks. McCain needs to go back to Arizona and retire from public life.

pilsener on June 12, 2014 at 1:47 PM

I’d hate to be ISIS when the world’s billion Muslims hear that an al qaeda army is on the move conquering Muslim nations. Muslim’s hate al qaeda!

Buddahpundit on June 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

But we “did” invade Iraq and expended blood and treasure there. When Obama came into office in 2009, we had achieved a military victory in Iraq as a result of the surge that happened in 2007. Obama threw that all away by failing to negotiate a SOFA which would have allowed an American force to remain in Iraq. He failed to maintain the peace.

In 2011, Obama declared that the Iraq war had been won – AND HE TOOK CREDIT FOR IT. You can’t have it both ways.

TarheelBen on June 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Obama is obsessed with Bush, and with undoing everything Bush did.

Obama can’t get the 9/11 pictures of Bush on top of the NYC rubble in Bush’s own work clothes (no mom jeans) and a bullhorn, looking like a leader or Bush in a bulletproof vest (no mom jeans) throwing straight over home plate in NYC with police snipers all around.

Bush, despite his faults, was a leader (and baseball pitcher) that Obama knows he can never be.

Wethal on June 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Forget it. No money and no troops for Iraq unless it’s part of a real global coalition.

jim56 on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Let them pay premium for the weapons used and delivery .

the_nile on June 12, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Obama is being well served by his National inSecurity Team.
It is America that is being poorly served by Obama and his minions.

But, no one will do anything. No one will be punished, unless they can somehow push out someone marginally more conservative than they like in their current post and put someone in more to their liking.

McCain will bellow from the sidelines to build up his worthless national security hawk bonafides, which he will immediately cash in for some progressive wish list item that looks shiny to him.

By the way, Obama hired these nefarious incompetents, who gets to pick their replacements? Ah, yeah, right, Obama. Meet your new boss, the same as your old boss.

astonerii on June 12, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Whatever you think of invading Iraq, it doesn’t excuse Obama’s incompetence thereafter.

Chuck Schick on June 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Fair enough on both counts.

So, what do we do going forward? I know what my inner realist says, and it makes me a little sick…

JohnGalt23 on June 12, 2014 at 1:51 PM

But we “did” invade Iraq and expended blood and treasure there. When Obama came into office in 2009, we had achieved a military victory in Iraq as a result of the surge that happened in 2007. Obama threw that all away by failing to negotiate a SOFA which would have allowed an American force to remain in Iraq. He failed to maintain the peace.

In 2011, Obama declared that the Iraq war had been won – AND HE TOOK CREDIT FOR IT. You can’t have it both ways.

TarheelBen on June 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Spot on!

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on June 12, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Hold on, let’s not forget the neocons cited connections between Sadam and al Qaeda.
And you’re forgetting the importance of finally letting the Shittes repress the Sunnis after the Sunnis had repressed the Shiites for decades. It’s only fair. A more perfect theocracy.

bayam on June 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM

The good Senator has got it wrong. The team did not fail the president. The president failed the country. They were hired to play the court jesters and re-affirm whatever the president wanted. There is a reason none of them have any stature, they cannot outshine the prez. in order to be the smartest man in the room he must surround himself with dunces.

warmairfan on June 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM

McCain calls for resignation of entire White House national security team over Iraq

…Stand Up Chuck!

KOOLAID2 on June 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Democracy can’t exist with Islam. The Theocracy will not allow it.

alanstern on June 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

And what’s your rationalization for Obama’s massive failure in Afghanistan? You remember Afghanistan, the “good war,” the one Obama said we should be devoted to winning. He’s f*cked up that war too, and just handed over five top Taliban commanders and who knows how many millions of our dollars to the terrorists there.

Should we f$@@king not have invaded Afghanistan too, so that Obama wouldn’t have been in a position to f**k that war up too? Your hero was the man with all the answers in 2008. He was the one who was going to use Smart Power! to control the terrorists and make all the world love and respect us again.

How’s that working out for you so far?

AZCoyote on June 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM

melle1228 on June 12, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Go back and look at what many of them actually did: Run field hospitals, guards, disposal assistance, reconstruction, humanitarian support, etc. Not a “real” global coalition in terms of fighting in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

jim56 on June 12, 2014 at 1:53 PM

I’d hate to be ISIS when the world’s billion Muslims hear that an al qaeda army is on the move conquering Muslim nations. Muslim’s hate al qaeda!

Buddahpundit on June 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM

No, Muslims hated on the run Al Qaeda. Now that they are on the march and not hiding, they will be beloved and supported.

astonerii on June 12, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Flashback.

butch on June 12, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Could this have been avoided? Yes! By not f$@@king invading Iraq in the first place.

coolrepublica on June 12, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Right.
Everyone knew taking out Saddam was going to leave a vacuum.It also enabled Iran to extend its empire. The Iraqis do not want American style democracy. It isn’t going to happen whether you bomb insurgents or not. A takeover by some group in Iraq is inevitable. Bombing only postpones the inevitable.

And McCain’s a warmongering idiot.

shubalstearns on June 12, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Fighting the war and then losing the peace to terrorists so awful other terrorists are scared to death of them is a disaster rivaling Vietnam.

Ted Torgerson on June 12, 2014 at 1:43 PM

In a way, it’s actually worse because the surge in 2008 had successfully pacified the country. Had we left some troops there, the Iraqis could have had time to build a real military and civil society and we might have been able to build a long term security partnership with them like we did with Japan and Germany at the end of WW2.

Instead, the left pulled our people out at the first chance they got in the hopes something like this would happen, so they could “prove” Bush’s foreign policy had failed, just like massive government overregulation and spending is supposed to “prove” capitalism has failed.

Doomberg on June 12, 2014 at 1:54 PM

And you’re forgetting the importance of finally letting the Shittes repress the Sunnis after the Sunnis had repressed the Shiites for decades. It’s only fair. A more perfect theocracy.

bayam on June 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Yeah, remember how the Sunnis were forbidden to vote in Iraqi elections?

Yeah, me neither.

sentinelrules on June 12, 2014 at 1:54 PM

bayam on June 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM

…look who can finally shit again!
…oh!…you’re talking Shiites!

KOOLAID2 on June 12, 2014 at 1:54 PM

But we “did” invade Iraq and expended blood and treasure there. When Obama came into office in 2009, we had achieved a military victory in Iraq as a result of the surge that happened in 2007. Obama threw that all away by failing to negotiate a SOFA which would have allowed an American force to remain in Iraq. He failed to maintain the peace.

A military victory for what? To create an Iranian satellite state ruled by a Shiite majority in a deeply divided country?
The US could have continued to achieve ‘military victories’ for the next 50 years without any outcome or resolution that realigned the Middle East or that served US political interests. Perhaps you should be asking why Iran doesn’t step up and protect Iraq. It’s calling the political shots in that country.

bayam on June 12, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Face it, folks. Iraq will never be a free, democratic country. …

Shump on June 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM

I’m with you.

Maybe we should learn from our very expensive (in American lives) mistakes that there is nothing we can do to advance uncivilized cultures towards civilization. That’s a process, not a procedure.

Next time, let’s just wall them off and put our energy into maintaining the integrity of the wall.

Tsar of Earth on June 12, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Hold on, let’s not forget the neocons cited connections between Sadam and al Qaeda.
And you’re forgetting the importance of finally letting the Shittes repress the Sunnis after the Sunnis had repressed the Shiites for decades. It’s only fair. A more perfect theocracy.

bayam on June 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM

You guys had it you way after Bush left. Now deal with it.

Chuck Schick on June 12, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Perhaps you should be asking why Iran doesn’t step up and protect Iraq. It’s calling the political shots in that country.

bayam on June 12, 2014 at 1:56 PM

They’re already sending 150 troops into Iraq.

Your president is golfing.

sentinelrules on June 12, 2014 at 1:57 PM

BREAKING: Iran Deploys Two Battalions of Revolutionary Guard Forces To Iraq…

Resist We Much on June 12, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Tehran has also positioned troops along its border with Iraq and promised to bomb rebel forces if they close within 100 kilometers, or 62 miles, from Iran’s border, according to an Iranian army general.

Looks like Iran will take care of the bombing chores.

butch on June 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Perhaps you should be asking why Iran doesn’t step up and protect Iraq. It’s calling the political shots in that country.

bayam on June 12, 2014 at 1:56 PM

The fact that Iraq is about to be conquered by an al-Qaida offshoot shows that’s very much not the case. Where are the Iranians defending Baghdad, hmm?

But hey, six years after Bush is out office, you guys finally get to do your endzone dances and declare that his foreign policy has failed. Congrats!

Doomberg on June 12, 2014 at 1:58 PM

…look who can finally shit again!
…oh!…you’re talking Shiites!

KOOLAID2 on June 12, 2014 at 1:54 PM

LOL!!

Deano1952 on June 12, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Someone mentioned this last night, the Saudis sure have been quite while all this goes on. Strange that the home of Mecca and the Wahabbist is off the radar.

Flange on June 12, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Lookie here, the puerile mucking forons in front of the world.

Schadenfreude on June 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Perhaps McCain could sweeten the deal and offer to retire himself as part of the bargain. Bipartisanship!

Jedditelol on June 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Maybe you shouldn’t have insisted on trying U.S. soldiers, Malaki.

John the Libertarian on June 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Face it, folks. Iraq will never be a free, democratic country. At least not in our lifetimes. While I agree that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a worthy goal, any desire to transform that nation was a false hope.

While I am sad to see what is happening once again to the people of that country, nothing will be served by our going back in. Unless we are prepared to stay there forever, the same thing will happen again the moment we withdraw. It’s an unwinnable situation.

Shump on June 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM

I think so too.

Among the many serious misunderstandings behind the invasion of Iraq was this: we thought we were invading the nation that was being brutalized by Saddam Hussein. In fact we were invading the state that produced Saddam Hussein. It will produce more brutes after him.

David Blue on June 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Yeah, remember how the Sunnis were forbidden to vote in Iraqi elections?

Yeah, me neither.

sentinelrules on June 12, 2014 at 1:54 PM

You actually think Western standards of democracy apply in Iraq, a theocracy, and can justify the cost in lives in treasure to wage that war. Amazing.

might have been able to build a long term security partnership with them like we did with Japan and Germany at the end of WW2.

No, Iraq is not like aggressor states of Japan or Germany in WWII and the war in Iraq was in no way comparable to WWII.

bayam on June 12, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Go back and look at what many of them actually did: Run field hospitals, guards, disposal assistance, reconstruction, humanitarian support, etc. Not a “real” global coalition in terms of fighting in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq

jim56 on June 12, 2014 at 1:53 PM

I shudder to have another military conversation with you, since YOU KNOW nothing about the military ( I believe you were the one who tried to compare a business trip to a deployment.

Here’s the thing, ANY military conflict is going to be like that. Even if the war was the most noble thing i.e., what Americans thin WWII was- we still would be the major fighting force. Our NATO allies have refused to even keep up with their military commitment they made in the NATO allowance. ANY WAR is going to look similar with certain countries only offering support. And while they were in supportive positions, it allowed the COMPETENT militaries to do the fighting.

melle1228 on June 12, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Resign? Hell, I bet there are some sweet bonuses on the table.

reddevil on June 12, 2014 at 2:02 PM

I gave up on Iraq when they seriously considered marrying 12-year-old girls.

John the Libertarian on June 12, 2014 at 2:02 PM

The good Senator has got it wrong. The team did not fail the president. The president failed the country. They were hired to play the court jesters and re-affirm whatever the president wanted. There is a reason none of them have any stature, they cannot outshine the prez. in order to be the smartest man in the room he must surround himself with dunces. – warmairfan on June 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM

I agree McCain should have called for the resignation of President and his entire government. He is being too tactful. But, then, we don’t have a parliamentary system in the United States.

SC.Charlie on June 12, 2014 at 2:02 PM

So, what do we do going forward? I know what my inner realist says, and it makes me a little sick…

JohnGalt23 on June 12, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Here you go: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, by John J. Mearsheimer. It’s ice cold, but if you want the best realist answer, that’s it.

David Blue on June 12, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Face it, folks. Iraq will never be a free, democratic country. At least not in our lifetimes. While I agree that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a worthy goal, any desire to transform that nation was a false hope.

While I am sad to see what is happening once again to the people of that country, nothing will be served by our going back in. Unless we are prepared to stay there forever, the same thing will happen again the moment we withdraw. It’s an unwinnable situation.

Shump on June 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM

I think so too.

Among the many serious misunderstandings behind the invasion of Iraq was this: we thought we were invading the nation that was being brutalized by Saddam Hussein. In fact we were invading the state that produced Saddam Hussein. It will produce more brutes after him.

David Blue on June 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Maybe not a Democracy, but maybe a military strong enough to fend off terrorist from getting a foothold in their cities. Pulling out without any major support or training personnel did not help the situation.

melle1228 on June 12, 2014 at 2:03 PM

al Qaeda is on the run, just ask obama

newportmike on June 12, 2014 at 2:04 PM

John must have missed the latest missive from Dear Leader about world peace.

BobMbx on June 12, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Correction:

The good Senator has got it wrong. The team did not fail the president. The president failed the country. They were hired to play the court jesters and re-affirm whatever the president wanted. There is a reason none of them have any stature, they cannot outshine the prez. in order to be the smartest man in the room he must surround himself with dunces. – warmairfan on June 12, 2014 at 1:52 PM

I agree McCain should have called for the resignation of President and his entire government. He is being far too tactful. But, then, we don’t have a parliamentary system in the United States.

SC.Charlie on June 12, 2014 at 2:02 PM

SC.Charlie on June 12, 2014 at 2:04 PM

You actually think Western standards of democracy apply in Iraq, a theocracy, and can justify the cost in lives in treasure to wage that war. Amazing.

bayam on June 12, 2014 at 2:01 PM

That’s pretty racist of you.

The following is a short list of what Obama has screwed up the past 6 years:

Iraq
Afghanistan
The Economy
Relations with Russia
Relations with the UK
The Deficit
Health Care

sentinelrules on June 12, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Anyone else having Vietnam flashbacks?

Cindy Munford on June 12, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Meh, Bammy’s more inclined to spend that money on the muslim global coalition, not an opposing coalition.

hawkeye54 on June 12, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Current events are getting in the way of his next NASA outreach program to get the Shi’a ‘hidden imam’ from that well in Qom tho Mars.

Annar on June 12, 2014 at 2:05 PM

tho —> to

Annar on June 12, 2014 at 2:06 PM

John Hayward ‏@Doc_0

Boehner on the Iraq disaster, sounding disgusted: “What’s the President doing? Taking a nap?

sentinelrules on June 12, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Senator McCain: 96 brave soldiers and Marines wre killed, over 600 were wounded. What do we tell their families?…What do we tell their mothers?

Obama administration: Dude, that was like, ten years ago!

Mike Honcho on June 12, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Anyone else having Vietnam flashbacks?

Cindy Munford on June 12, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Let’s hope it doesn’t rise to the level of Pol Pot, or the boat
people.

melle1228 on June 12, 2014 at 2:07 PM

al Qaeda is on the run, just ask obama

newportmike on June 12, 2014 at 2:04 PM

straight to Baghdad

faraway on June 12, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Boehner on the Iraq disaster, sounding disgusted: “What’s the President doing? Taking a nap?

sentinelrules on June 12, 2014 at 2:06 PM

He’s meeting with LaRaza to find out how many more illegal alien kids they can transport across Mexico in the next few weeks.

AZCoyote on June 12, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Maybe we should learn from our very expensive (in American lives) mistakes that there is nothing we can do to advance uncivilized cultures towards civilization. That’s a process, not a procedure.

Next time, let’s just wall them off and put our energy into maintaining the integrity of the wall.

Tsar of Earth on June 12, 2014 at 1:57 PM

I agree with you but don’t expect our officials, in either party, to learn from this. Their track record in the Middle East proves it. And its the foreign policies of BOTH parties. But, hey, let’s bomb Iraq and then reinvade it. What’s a few thousand lives and a couple of trillion dollars more?

shubalstearns on June 12, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Another day, another scandal.

Bigbullets on June 12, 2014 at 2:10 PM

In late 2010 the administration coordinated the return of Muqtada al Sadr from Iran and saw to it that he became part of an utterly corrupt coalition government that would provide the (temporary) stability necessary for an American withdrawal that didn’t look like complete capitulation.

This was known throughout theater and DC. Anyone who served any length of time there knew how this would end and has simply been waiting for this day.

Although Sadr apparently does not play a significant role in the violence happening now, the Obama administration’s willingness to not only tolerate but abet villains violently, murderously hostile to the U.S. has always portended a horrendous demise for any mideast country in which we now meddle.

M240H on June 12, 2014 at 2:10 PM

No, Iraq is not like aggressor states of Japan or Germany in WWII…

bayam on June 12, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Before there was WWII there was Japan in Manchuria and Germany in Sudetenland. No comparison to Iraq in Kuwait, of course.

de rigueur on June 12, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Just think, if McCain weren’t so inept, he would be in a position to do something about the current crisis.

Bigbullets on June 12, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Anyone else having Vietnam flashbacks?

Cindy Munford on June 12, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Not yet. But the local oldies station won’t stop playing The Doors this morning.

de rigueur on June 12, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3