Until a few moments ago, I was unfamiliar with Mario Loyola, who writes for National Review.
But now, after reading Mr. Loyola\’s analysis of Barack Obama\’s disastrous bungling in Iraq, I think I will be very interested to read him in the future:
Here are the first five paragraphs (and please, please use the link I\’ve provided to read the rest):
PresidentBarack Obama came to office promising to “bring a responsible endto the war in Iraq.” That should have been easy enough to do,considering the war was already over. Alas, he seems to have had inmind something quite different than “ending a war.” Perhapsbecause of his general bias against exertions of American power,Obama seems to have convinced himself that our continuing militarypresence in post-war Iraq was the same as continuing the war.
Thisnovel conception of when wars end suggests Obama may yet pull ourforces out of Europe and the Far East in order to “end” World WarII. It also helps to explain how he came to equate “responsiblyending the war in Iraq” with throwing away everything we had gainedfrom it. Obama made it plain from the start that he saw no reason tokeep investing in a mistake. He let our military presence in Iraqlapse, and left the Iraqi government to fend for itself when it wasstill far too fragile. There is a reason we stayed in Germany andJapan and South Korea for decades after the fighting stopped: Wedidn\’t want our sacrifices to be for nothing, and we didn\’t wantto have to fight again.
Nowthe Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIS – the veryal-Qaeda forces we defeated in Iraq in 2007 – have come back andtaken over hugeswaths of the country, including most of the Sunni heartland tothe west and north of Baghdad. Meanwhile, over in next-door Syria,Obama stood by while the rebels fighting Bashar Assad came under thedominance of extreme Islamist forces, and then sold them all out withthe chemical-weapons deal in September 2013. Consequently, we havethrown the Iraqi government into a de facto alliance with themurderous Baathist regime in Syria – a feat that not even commonenemies and a common ideology could achieve during Saddam\’s rule -and now both governments find themselves increasingly dependent onIran.
WithIran\’s power and prestige thus enhanced, and rapidly filling thevacuum left behind by the U.S., the mullahs now see the possibilityat long last of extending the Islamic Revolution across the FertileCrescent. With our impending agreement to let Iran keep itsnuclear-weapons programs, we can now settle comfortably into therole of a de facto subordinate ally of Iran, whoseforces we may soon be helping with airstrikes in Iraq. If you\’re wondering where that leaves ouractual allies among the Gulf kingdoms and Israel, they are wonderingthe same thing.
Foreign-policymistakes are inevitable, and should generally be expected, if notalways forgiven. But in its approach to Iraq and the Middle East as awhole, the Obama administration has been criminally negligent. Itcould be years and maybe decades before we see a situation as good asthe one Obama found when he got to office – and things are almostcertainly going to get far worse before they get better.
I admit that there is a little ego involved here, in that I have blogged about much of this myself over the past weeks. But Mr. Loyola says it so well, and adds analytical elements I have not yet discussed, that he makes this reality even more understandable….therefore more unavoidable, even to the hardest-line Obama supporter.
I would love to see/hear a rebuttal of what you have just read. I would be fascinated – maybe amazed – if anyone could come up with one that makes sense. I\’m not talking about the “Bush started the war, so anything Obama does is his fault” or “You just hate him because he\’s a Black man” diversionary BS: Barack Obama has been President for 5 1/2 years, and whatever you think of the Bush presidency, it is Obama\’s policy decisions that have been in place all this time. He is the responsible party.
No President in my lifetime – maybe anybody\’s lifetime – has been more incompetent, more inept, more damaging to United States interests than Barack Obama.
And, incredibly, he seems not to have learned a thing from his failures.
Is it his arrogance? That unparalleled ego? How can he be just as obtuse, single-minded and wrong now as he ever has been?
And what further damage can Barack Obama do as commander in chief in his remaining 2 1/2 years? I shudder to think of the possibilities.
