General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMichael Tomasky: Obama’s Iraq Is Not Bush’s Iraq
Obamas Iraq Is Not Bushs Iraq
The war against ISIS may fail. But morally, its the opposite of Bushs war, and if it succeeds, it will do so for precisely that reason.
Last week, a Politico reporter phoned me to ascertain my thoughts on the new war. Among the questions: Was there concern among liberals that Barack Obama was in some sense now becoming George Bush, and did I see similarities between the current war and Bushs Iraq war that, come on, be honest, made me squirm in my seat ever so slightly? My answer ended up on the cutting-room floor, as many answers given to reporters do.
But since Im fortunate enough to have a column, Id like to broadcast it now, because the answer is a reverberating no. In fact its hard for me to imagine how the differences between the two actions could be starker. This is not to say that they might not end up in the same placecreating more problems than they solve. But in moral terms, this war is nothing like that war, and if this war doesnt end up like Bushs and somehow actually solves more problems than it creates, that will happen precisely because of the moral differences.
The first and most important difference, plainly and simply: Obama didnt lie us into this war. Its worth emphasizing this point, I think, during this week when Obama is at the United Nations trying to redouble international support to fight ISIS, and as we think back on Colin Powells infamous February 2003 snow job to Security Council. Obama didnt tell us any nightmarish fairy tales about weapons of mass destruction that had already been destroyed or never existed. He didnt trot his loyalists out there to tell fantastical stories about smoking guns and mushroom clouds.
The evidence for the nature of the threat posed by the Islamic State is, in contrast, as non-fabricated as evidence can be and was handed right to us by ISIS itself: the beheading videos, and spokesmens own statements from recruitment videos about the groups goal being the establishment of a reactionary fundamentalist state over Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. Thats all quite real.
Difference number two: This war doesnt involve 140,000 ground troops. Thats not just a debating point. Its a massive, real-world difference. I know some of you are saying, well, not yet, anyway. Time could prove you right. But if this works more or less as planned, it establishes a new model for fighting terrorism in the Middle Eastthe United States and Arab nations and fighting forces working together to do battle against terrorism. Thats kind of a huge deal.
Which leads us to difference number three: This coalition, while still in its infancy, could in the end be a far more meaningful coalition than Bushs. The Bush coalition was an ad hoc assemblage bribed or browbeaten into backing the United States immediate geopolitical aims. It was brought together pretty much so Bush could deflect the essentially true unilateralist charge and stand up there and say 41 countries have joined together blah blah blah.
This coalition is smaller, but the important point is that its not built around a goal that is in the interest only of the United States. Defeating the Islamic State is a genuine priority for the region, and the idea that these gulf states that have been winking at or backing violent extremism for years might actually work with the United States of America (!) to fight it is little short of amazing. Im not saying Obama deserves the credit here, although it seems clear he and others in the administration have worked hard on this point. Rather, the fact is that the Saudis and the Emiratis and others are now doing, however reluctantly, what its in their self-interest to do.
more...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/24/obama-s-iraq-is-not-bush-s-iraq.html
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)because it didn't suit their agenda is very revealing. Well, maybe not so much, I already knew Politico is a pile of biased crap, but still...
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)site reminds me of Chuck Todd, or vice versa. They both get a lot more credibility from other media and neither deserve it. What happened to critical thinking?
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)And no surprise the shills at 'Politico' did not want to publish his comments....
karynnj
(59,501 posts)This really is almost the opposite of Bush.
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)just maybe not folks on DU.
karynnj
(59,501 posts)It was great to see the respect that various delegates showed for Kerry and indirectly for Obama in the Friday session. It could not have been easy to overcome the lack of trust that was the legacy of Bush.
Thank you!
Cha
(297,154 posts)to discern that.
Leyla @MiamiLib
Follow
The French Did For President Obama What They Refused To Do For Bush http://nydn.us/1tz28Oy
#p2 #tcot #uniteblue #teaparty #gop #lnyhbt
8:43 AM - 23 Sep 2014
Au revoir, ISIS fighters: French jets kill dozens of jihadists,...
The French did for President Obama on Friday what they refused to do for his predecessor they joined the fight in Iraq.
New York Daily News @NYDailyNews
72 Retweets 20 favorites
http://theobamadiary.com/2014/09/23/a-tweet-or-two-125/
"This coalition is smaller, but the important point is that its not built around a goal that is in the interest only of the United States. Defeating the Islamic State is a genuine priority for the region, and the idea that these gulf states that have been winking at or backing violent extremism for years might actually work with the United States of America (!) to fight it is little short of amazing. Im not saying Obama deserves the credit here, although it seems clear he and others in the administration have worked hard on this point. Rather, the fact is that the Saudis and the Emiratis and others are now doing, however reluctantly, what its in their self-interest to do."
Mahalo babylonsistah~