Skip to main content

You would think that after 10 years of a war that was started for illegitimate reasons, Republicans would have learned their lessons not to rush into combat. You would think that the American people’s distaste for sending men and women of the U.S. military to a place where they can get killed, maimed, and mentally damaged would send the message that enough is enough.

You would think that a war costing more than $9 billion a month, according to the Congressional Budget Office  — with no funding from Congress — would dampen the GOP ardor for war. You would think that they should know better than to try to goad the Obama administration into further Iraq entanglement. But I guess they just can’t help themselves.

On Sunday morning talk shows and on the campaign trail, we hear the same old tired rhetoric from the same old usual gang of suspects. The latest talking points, repeated ad infinitum, are that “we didn’t stay there long enough” and that “the soldiers left too soon.” Too soon for what, you may ask. Too soon to rebuild an entire nation that the U.S. destroyed? Too soon to pour more money and effort into training soldiers who apparently don’t want to get trained, since they dropped their weapons that the U.S made and paid for and ran away at the first sight of an enemy? Too soon to hold together a country formed after World War I of disparate tribes, ethnic groups, and religious sects that probably never should have been made into a new country in the first place?

Hillary Clinton, most likely gearing up for a 2016 presidential run, also cast doubt on Obama’s foreign policy, even though she served as his secretary of state. In an interview with The Atlantic, she said Obama should have armed Syrian rebels sooner. “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” she said.

Former Obama political adviser David Axelrod was quick to hit back. He tweeted: “Just to clarify: ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision.” It also was something that the hawkish Clinton voted for when she was a senator.

Sen. John McCain chillin' with his ISIS pals in Syria in 2013.
Of course, if we had listened to people like Sen. John McCain (R, I never met a war I didn’t like), the U.S .would have armed ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Don’t forget it was McCain, on a trip to Syria to meet with rebel leaders, who gave ISIS its first photo op (see above) by posing with the very leaders now leading the effort in Iraq. Who, exactly, should we have armed in Syria? The people John McCain posed with in their selfie, so they could use those same weapons against the Shi’a, the Kurds, and the Yazidi?

The Iraqi Army took care of that. Never has there been an army so quick to cut and run. There have been stories of ISIS forces bribing Iraqi Army officers, who ordered their own soldiers to dump their equipment and hightail it away from battle.

And what about “leaving U.S. forces in Iraq”? Don’t forget that SOFA, the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, was made under the Bush Administration and signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. And the Iraqis were totally unwilling to allow any U.S. troops to remain in Iraq or give them any legal protection. Obama rightly corrected a reporter in a recent news conference when he said: “That entire analysis is bogus and is wrong. But it gets frequently peddled around here by folks who oftentimes are trying to defend previous policies that they themselves made.”

Nevertheless, McCain says the upsurge in violence in Iraq must be Obama’s fault. So does Sen. Lindsay Graham (R, S.C.) who said that if there’s an ISIS attack in the U.S., it will definitely be Obama’s fault. Funny, I don’t remember Graham, McCain, or other Iraq War supporters blaming President Bush when he ignored the intelligence briefing memo that said “Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S.”

The current limited approach to violence in Iraq is supported by a majority of Americans because it’s just that — limited. According to a poll conducted just after the president ordered the airstrikes and humanitarian effort, nearly 60 percent of Americans said they support the limited option of airstrikes against ISIS. Only 15 percent support sending in ground troops again. And no wonder — we all saw how that turned out the first time. The American people most definitely do NOT want “boots on the ground,” and Obama has consistently said that’s not an option. Iraq needs its own political solution, not a solution from the U.S. military, he has stressed time and time again.

The limited number of U.S. troops sent to Iraq to protect U.S. personnel has remained limited, although the number has climbed to nearly 1,000. All that means the media are doing what they love to do best — start talking about “mission creep” and start making predictions.

Still, Obama has vowed to stick to his limited approach and not get bogged down in another unwinnable war. ” ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ ought to be emblazoned on the foreheads of all future presidents and secretaries of state,” said Aaron David Miller, a former State Department adviser during both Democratic and Republican administrations.

It turns out that “Don’t do stupid stuff” is a pretty good approach to foreign policy after all.

This is cross-posted at my own website, And from the Dept. of Shameless Self-Promotion, if you're interested in a murder mystery mixed with political media satire set at a Netroots Nation-type convention, check out The Political Blogging Murder, available as an e-book in a variety of formats for a mere $2.99.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, JeffW, mosesfreeman, Garrett, kurt

    Want to read a funny mystery about political blogging? Visit and check out The Political Blogging Murder.

    by Molly Weasley on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 02:19:06 PM PDT

  •  You would think... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Garrett, happymisanthropy, kurt, Alhambra

    But only if you assume that they had the best interests of the US in mind. They don't.

    US policy in Iraq has served the MIC well. They don't give a shit  about the human consequences, they just want more contracts and more profits. The costs to us be damned.

    Regarding "Don't do stupid stuff", there's something I want to point out. The US has spent many billions (with a "b") of dollars training various groups in the ME and beyond, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever. These groups have consistently proven to be unreliable when it counts, thus the success of ISIS and the impending doom in Afghanistan.

    Iran on the other hand, has spent millions of dollars (with an "m") funding similar militias. These have proven to be effective and formidable. Iran has found the solution that eludes the United States.

    I would conclude that the US is inept at playing this game. Effective diplomacy is an art that is beyond the ken of our government, regardless of party affiliation. We should either stop playing it, or if that isn't possible, at least learn from those that succeed.

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

    … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

    by mosesfreeman on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 02:51:58 PM PDT

    •  Why, though, unreliable? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mosesfreeman, Metric Only

      Afghan National Police are particularly disliked, for being predatory. And they are killed, in the war, at a very high rate.

      They were quickly ramped up on an American plan. Very perfunctory training, of an underpaid and largely illiterate force in a dangerous position.

      Where, Afghanistan might need actual police, not yet another Taliban hunting outfit.

      And the Afghan National Army. I'd think they might be focused on threats to Afghanistan from Pakistan and Iran and such. You know, an army? But, under the American plan, the Afghan National Army is yet another Taliban hunting force.

      The unreliability comes from the plan, I think. Unreliable for what? For meeting American goals?

      •  The "plan" is concocted by fools (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Garrett, Metric Only

        who are clearly out of their depth in the ME. Yet nothing changes.

        … the NSA takes significant care to prevent any abuses and that there is a substantial oversight system in place,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), said August 23.

        by mosesfreeman on Wed Aug 13, 2014 at 03:25:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site