The bottom line is clear: Our vital interests in Afghanistan are limited and military victory is not the key to achieving them. On the contrary, waging a lengthy counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan may well do more to aid Taliban recruiting than to dismantle the group, help spread conflict further into Pakistan, unify radical groups that might otherwise be quarreling amongst themselves, threaten the long-term health of the U.S. economy, and prevent the U.S. government from turning its full attention to other pressing problems. -- Afghanistan Study Group

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Update for Wednesday, July 6, 2016


No real surprises so far as the Chilcot Report is finally released, although nobody has had time to read all 6,275 pages yet. One useful summary is from The Mirror, which lists 13 key points. As we already know, the Saddam Hussein regime was not an imminent threat (I would say, not even a non-imminent threat) to Europe or North America; the case for war was based on intelligence which Chilcot calls uncertain (and I would call fabricated); and there was no plan for what would happen after the invasion, with the resulting chaos ultimately leading to the current disaster. But the most important takeaway is that Tony Blair and George W. Bush had discussed going to war in Iraq as early as July, 2002. [In fact, unless it's a typo, the Mirror summary says that they discussed invading Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001.]

While many Britons are today calling for Blair and his co-conspirators to face legal consequences -- and see also reactions of families of dead British soldiers, also here; and by various politicians including herehere, and here; and a chorus of politicians scathingly denouncing him without necessarily mentioning legal action, there has been no comparable response in the U.S. -- despite that everything the report says in condemnation of Blair and the actions of the UK applies precisely to the actions of the George W. Bush regime.

Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump praises Saddam Hussein, saying "Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? ... But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read 'em the rights, they didn't talk. They were a terrorist, it was over." In fact Saddam tortured and murdered dissenters, and committed mass murder of Kurdish and Shiite civilian communities. His regime was classified as a state sponsor of terrorism by the United States, principally because of his support for attacks against Israeli civilian targets by Palestinians. Whether he killed people the U.S. considered "terrorists" is unclear, although he did engage in conflict with the Kurdish separatist group Ansar al Islam, which the U.S. considered a terrorist group. (Bush claimed that the presence of Insar al Islam within Iraqi Kurdistan, technically part of Iraq, was evidence that Saddam harbored terrorists. But in fact, as I say, they were enemies.)

I'll provide an update once we know more about the Chilcot report. 

7 comments:

Greatest Genius said...

I have read every report for this blog since it's creation about 15 years ago, and as the leader of a political party in Canada it has been a source of information which is great for me to know of, As an expert on geo-political movements, one matter which reveals the superficial interest the Obama regime has in Iraq's stability is that even though it was conspicuous former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki would have salivated with happiness if his Shiite torture and death squads had exterminated every last Sunni in Iraq, Obama nor Kerry neither mentioned a single sentence nor even sent a note about it to any organization or State in the world. Then when the Sunni Islamic State army was formed in part to counter Al-Maliki's policy of oppression against Sunni's, about 2 years ago, all of a sudden Kerry acted like he was concerned about Al-Maliki's behaviour. The Obama regime was about 8 years late to act like they cared about the Sunni's, when during Obama's entire Presidency his auxilliary military force for the Middle East, a Shiite regime, led by Al -Maliki, was oppressing,and killing a massive amount of Iraqi Sunni's. Obama and Kerry are even worse than amateur political worker's and are nothing other than Internationalist Marxist agents taking orders from Israel.

Greatest Genius said...

Instead of typing "As an expert on geo-political movements, one matter which ", I intended to type, "As an expert on geo-political movements, I can guarantee that, one matter which". Indeed within my second sentence I intended to insert the word's,"I can guarantee that", in the spot I indicated. The reason I want to make this guarantee about the validity of my first message is so that any person who reads my message knows that my claim is irrefutabely based on the scientific truth. Of course Obama and Kerry would likely deny it but my claims are based on pure fact and the opposite is not the case!

Greatest Genius said...

If Trump wins the Presidency he will likely deal a crushing blow to the Islamic State army from which recovery by them would be very hard if they ever were to recover most of their lost strength if Trump attacked them.

Cervantes said...

I don't know if you're the Greatest Genius and you're 100% wrong about Trump. But I do agree that the Obama administration was far too tolerant of Maliki.

Greatest Genius said...

Cervantes, I most adduce that I am the greatest genius with such pure monumental intelligence that it is of the highest level possible in this universe , irrefutably, and that I am correct about Trump 100%! Indeed, I made the assertion that Trump will most likely damage the majority of the strength of ISIS, not that he definitely will. Clinton's system would be more Marxist military strategy like Obama's, which is more failure. As a matter of fact the general Democratic Party strategy has actually led to a strengthening of Al Qaeda and the Taliban who are allied with eachother, and a strenghtening of ISIS, which has increased it's world wide support since it commenced geo-political operations. Although Trump's foreign policy in the Middle East could use aggrandizement, he is a fanatic supporter of attempting to gain American militaristic preponderance over ISIS. Trump is campaigning in large part on his desire to use an iron fist against ISIS, and additionally the American Army can facilitate that type of endeavor, ruthlessly. Trump wants to hit ISIS hard, including their oil fields, and he wants to cut off immigration from Syria and all other dangerous Islamic countries, thus rendering attempts by ISIS to infiltrate into America much more likely to fail. None of these policies have been conducted by Obama, who is certainly no military strategist or genius, indeed this man will not even refer to Islamic terror as being conducted hitherto on American soil during his presidency even though criminal attacks against Americans have been conducted as Islamic terror during that time. If Trump does not exterminate at least the majority of the power of ISIS within a 4 year term it would most likely be political suicide, thus if elected he had better deal a crushing blow to them - if he wants to have a good chance of winning a second term as President. For at least the reasons I have referred to, among many others, I have proven that I am 100% correct about Trump. Indeed all judgements I make are based on fact and can never be proven to be imperfect because they are perfect. Sir, although I have implied that I believe that there is a greater than 50% chance that Trump, if elected, would reduce the strength of ISIS, by more than 50% of their power, which of course would be the majority of their power, I have not claimed that he will definitely do so, if he is elected. As a pure genius, it would not be warranted for me to claim he definitely would if he is elected. Trump is not a genius, but judging by his rhetoric in his speeches and knowing his of hatred of Islamic terror combined with the strength of the American Army, I as a pure genius must believe that he will most likely destroy the majority of the strenght of ISIS. Even if he destroys between 50 and 51 percent of their power that would be most of their power and it is feasible for the American Army to do so, if lead by a man who utterly hates ISIS and commands them to use full force against ISIS. If he does give them that command in the future it will be up to the American soldiers subsequently to deliver that degree of assault on ISIS which I know they would then attempt to do. To Trump's credit he did not want America to risk severely damaging the Middle East in the first place by attacking Iraq in 2003 and additionally he wrote in a book before the Twin Towers were destroyed, about his belief that Osama Bin Laden was a threat to America. A final note is that when I win the Prime Ministerial position here in Canada in posterity, I will inflict with the brutal fist complete destruction upon any Islamic terror army which threatens Canada or Britain or any of our allies or friends. I do give credit to you Mr. Cervantes for agreeing with me about Obama's indifference to, and neglect of, the horror hurled upon Iraq's Sunni civilians by the degenerate, animal-like feedbag, Nouri Al Maliki.

Greatest Genius said...

For the record, instead of typing "knowing his of hatred of Islamic terror", I intended to type, "knowing of his hatred of Islamic terror", in order to use perfect english!

Greatest Genius said...

Also I intended on starting my reply with "I must adduce", not "I most adduce".