2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

Not clear to me what the policy alternative was in Iraq.  The internal politics there did not have permit a revival of the previous SOFA and I have not heard any sensible scenario of how the US stays on in the absence of that agreement.

Well, one could point out that the Iraqi gov't couldn't really do much more than complain had will in America been different but yeah, I broadly agree that such is pretty large impediment. We'd potentially enter a timeline where ISIS was prevented but as no one knew of anything prevented, America just tarnished itself for...?

[frunk]

Well, one could point out that the Iraqi gov't couldn't really do much more than complain had will in America been different but yeah, I broadly agree that such is pretty large impediment. We'd potentially enter a timeline where ISIS was prevented but as no one knew of anything prevented, America just tarnished itself for...?

Considering ISIS started in Syria I think it would have been difficult to prevent its development without intervention there.  A stronger US presence in Iraq would have stopped ISIS's growth but not eliminate it.

[celedhring]

Was there any realistic policy alternative? I can't see any scenario where continuing occupation or staggered withdrawal isn't just kicking the can down the road, bleeding men and treasury until the whole thing *still* crashes down once the last US servicemen pull out. The Iraqi power structures and national unity were just never there.

[CountDeMoney]

Not clear to me what the policy alternative was in Iraq.  The internal politics there did not have permit a revival of the previous SOFA and I have not heard any sensible scenario of how the US stays on in the absence of that agreement.

The Iraqis were adamant that a new SOFA address the question of immunity for US forces.  Now, as much as I would enjoy seeing Siegy brought before an Iraqi court for prosecuting his personal little war, even the peacemongering weenie America-hating Obama refused to accept those terms.

They didn't want us there and they publicly demanded a precondition they knew Obama would not and could not accept, no matter how much he wanted to make our military a disaster and leave our generals in rubble.

So, maybe next time don't topple a regime that suppresses its Shia majority, force majority-rule democracy on it, and expect them not to act like a sovereign nation taking the will of the people into account. Holy fucking shit.

[CountDeMoney]

We should've taken the oil. Whatever the fuck that means.

[The Minsky Moment]

The key turning point was the 2010 elections, and Maliki's return to power, with Iranian/Sadrist backing, despite Allawi's plurality at the polls.  If there is a criticism of US policy, it is to be made here - because there is little evidence that the US did anything to block that outcome, and some to suggest tacit encouragement as a way to get a government in place earlier rather than later.  This criticism has been made, and has some legitimacy to it, although again it isn't obvious that the US had much leverage to exercise here - once the Shi'a parties banded together on sectarian lines they were already very close to 50%.

That said one of the earliest and most persistent critics of Maliki was Senator Hillary Clinton.

[Valmy]

I disagree that our presence would have made the Middle East stabilized. Hell many people claim it was destabilizing.

I think it was neither. That region is too full of hate to stabilize for awhile.

[CountDeMoney]

Ah...how one longs for the heady days when we could topple a government, install our own, and then topple that one, too.  Because then we wouldn't have to worry about things like rampant anti-Americanism from when we would topple a government, install our own, and then topple that one, too.

#trumpd'etat

[Valmy]

I wonder at stuff like that - we could have a vastly better situation overall compared to what did happen, but it would *look* in many ways to the PEACE AT ALL COSTS crowd that dominated politics in the US eight years ago as a much worse outcome, because of course they would not even be aware of what was avoided...

We would not have a vastly better situation. We would have a different horrible situation. I am not a PEACE AT ALL COSTS guy I am just not in favor of the US fighting land wars in Asia. Especially that part of Asia.

[Razgovory]

What was he supposed to do on point 3? Force Iraq to accept a permanent occupation?

I don't buy that excuse.

He was elected trumpeting how he would bail on Iraq. He made it clear that he had zero interest in trying to accommodate any kind of arrangement with Iraq which would contemplate American troops staying there. Given the political climate internally in Iraq at that time, it would have taken some careful and considered negotiation to make it possible for US troops to stay, even while both parties really knew that they really did NEED to stay.

So he has the fig leaf now and then that it really wasn't up to him - and that is crap. There are a lot of ways that problem could have been approached, and he chose to follow through on his ridiculous campaign promises to just cut and run as fast as possible. It did not have to be that way. There was no binary STAY OR GO decision that had to be made.

That was a terrible error on his part, even if it was one that political circumstances had forced on him.

I have to wonder though - if he had reneged on his promise to the moveon crowd to cut and run as fast as possible (in a similar fashion to how he abandoned the promise to close Gitmo), you could easily imagine a reality where

1. US troops would continue to die in Iraq over the last eight years in insurgency violence, and
2. ISIS would never have really had the success they did have.

I wonder at stuff like that - we could have a vastly better situation overall compared to what did happen, but it would *look* in many ways to the PEACE AT ALL COSTS crowd that dominated politics in the US eight years ago as a much worse outcome, because of course they would not even be aware of what was avoided...

Moveon crowd.  lol.  I love it when you play the false equivalency game.  There is no particular reason as to why the US would want to keep an army in Iraq in 2009.  It was about as peaceful as it was going to get.  When President Obama was elected no one expected a civil war in Syria would break out, and that beaten rebels from Iraq would set up shop in Western Syria.  It's also unclear what an army in Iraq would do to an organization based in Syria.  Would the US also invade Syria? To what end?  To fight Assad and ISIS?  Then what?  We'll simply have to chase insurgents based in Lebanon.  Playing Islamic whack-a-mole is a mugs game.

[Phillip V]

Only two polls out of Texas so far this October, but Trump is only leading by 3% and 4%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6104.html

[Berkut]

I wonder at stuff like that - we could have a vastly better situation overall compared to what did happen, but it would *look* in many ways to the PEACE AT ALL COSTS crowd that dominated politics in the US eight years ago as a much worse outcome, because of course they would not even be aware of what was avoided...

We would not have a vastly better situation. We would have a different horrible situation. I am not a PEACE AT ALL COSTS guy I am just not in favor of the US fighting land wars in Asia. Especially that part of Asia.

I can agree that we would likely have a different horrible situation, but I cannot help but think that the rise of ISIS, and then having to crush them, was a pretty terrible outcome that represents the "more bad" end of the possible outcomes spectrum.

And whatever you are in favor of, we are on the business of fighting these wars anyway, and have for the last eight years. It's not like Obama has been hands off in the ME. We've dropped how many thousands of bombs on various targets over the last eight years?

There doesn't appear to be a set of options on the table that involves the US not fighting these groups.

[Valmy]

Only two polls out of Texas so far this October, but Trump is only leading by 3% and 4%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/tx/texas_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6104.html

I don't believe it. Well I guess we will see on election day.

[Valmy]

There doesn't appear to be a set of options on the table that involves the US not fighting these groups.

We can fight the groups but sending our guys over there has proven to not be a viable strategy. Or at least not a viable long term one.

[derspiess]

Uh, oh.  Not good for Hil

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/