Category Archives: Iran

The ‘Sacrifices’ Our ‘Friends’ In The Middle East Make

Iran, Israel, Jihad

I had imagined that Israel would grow a brain and would reconsider its antagonistic attitude to Bashar Hafez al-Assad. Syria’s embattled leader is currently fighting ISIS and losing. But no, things are as Bat Buchanan paints them:

America [is expected to] send her best and bravest back into Iraq to defeat ISIS, while Turkey, the Saudis, the Gulf Arabs and Israel are helping bring about the defeat of a Syrian army that has been battling ISIS for years.

Our “friends” in the Middle East have no problem with us fighting and dying to drive ISIS out of Iraq, while they try to bring about the fall of Assad in Syria, which would constitute a triumph for ISIS.

Our “friends” don’t mind this happening because it would be a defeat for Iran and the Shiite Crescent, their enemies, even if it meant a victory for ISIS and al-Qaida, our enemies.

What Pat fails to mention is that American leaders are the true traitors, here. They and their comitatus“the sprawling apparatus … that encompasses not only the emperor’s household and its personnel … but also the ministries of government, the lawyers, the diplomats, the adjutants, the messengers, the interpreters, the intellectuals”—are first to offer up American blood and treasure in furtherance of their own interests and aggrandizement.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Ask #Bush Why The #IraqiMilitary Won’t Fight

Federalism, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Pseudo-history

“Ask Bush Why The Iraqi Military Won’t Fight” is the current column, now on Praag.org. An excerpt:

… The ineptness of the reconstituted Iraqi Army is nothing new. In 2006, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton demanded to know when the “Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army would step up to the task.” “I have heard over and over again, that the government must do this, the Iraqi Army must do that,” griped Clinton to Gen. John P. Abizaid, then top American military commander in the Middle East. “Can you offer us more than the hope that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army will step up to the task?”

Indeed, the War Party is in the habit of thrashing about in an ahistorical void—or creating its own reality, as warbot Karl Rove, George Bush’s muse, is notorious for saying. The neoconservative creed as disgorged by Rove deserves repeating:

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

The lowly “you” Rove reserved for “the reality-based community” (guilty).

Curiously, a military that has done nothing but flee before the opposition ever since the Americans commandeered Iraq, had fought and won a protracted war against Iran, under Saddam Hussein. The thing we currently call the Iraqi military has been unable and unwilling to fight the wars America commands it to fight.

Why?

For one, Bush’s envoy to Iraq, Paul Bremer, made the decision to dissolve the Iraqi Army and civil service, early in 2003, with the blessing of Bush at whose pleasure Bremer served. Bush’s minions viewed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army as part of the “De-Ba’thification” process. …

… Another dynamic is at play in the region besides the Sunni-Shia divide. It is that between the forces of centralization and the forces of decentralization. …

Read the rest. “Ask Bush Why The Iraqi Military Won’t Fight” is now on Praag.org


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Defense Secretary #AshtonCarter’s #Iraq No-Brainer

Iran, Iraq, John McCain, Military, Nationhood, Pseudo-history, Republicans

John McCain will be rising on his hind legs when he hears what US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has just said. The rest of the War Party will be irate too–even more so than the Iraqi prime minister was (who is he these days? Ah: Haider al-AbadiIt)

What Defense Secretary Carter said is a no-brainer, really; such observations were routine when Bush 43 began swinging the wrecking ball in Iraq. But the War Party is ahistoric—the War party-line is to continue duping ditto-heads into believing that the sorry state of Iraq is Obama’s doing. Not on my watch (having been in the position to witness and document the last 13 years, summed up last week in “Iraq Liars & Deniers: we knew then what we know now”).

So what did Carter say this Memorial Day weekend (a timing armchair warrior Mark Levin is sure to mention)?

Carter said “the rout of Iraqi forces at the city of Ramadi showed they lacked the will to fight against Islamic State. Mr Carter told CNN’s State of the Union the Iraqis ‘vastly outnumbered’ the IS forces but chose to withdraw.” Via BBC News

“What apparently happened is the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight. They were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force.”
Describing the situation as “very concerning”, he added: “We can give them training, we can give them equipment – we obviously can’t give them the will to fight.”

In 2006 , the Hildebeest demanded to know when the “Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army would step up to the task?” “I have heard over and over again, ‘the government must do this, the Iraqi Army must do that’,” warbot Clinton complained (and I documented) to Gen. John P. Abizaid, then top American military commander in the Middle East. “Can you offer us more than the hope that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi Army will step up to the task?”

Watch Mrs. Clinton feign amnesia about that TODAY.

Since the 2003 invasion, the Iraqi military has fled before the opposition, whoever that was. The thing we call the Iraqi military has been unable and/or unwilling to fight the wars America wishes it to fight. It did, however, fight and win a war against Iran under Saddam.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Err, Isn’t Iran Fighting ISIS In The Middle East!?

Iran, Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Meet The Press’ Chuck Todd that the deal with Iran, the details of which are still unclear, is a deal with the “preeminent terrorist state of our time.” Iran, says Bibi, is “a militant, Islamic power, built on regional corporate domination. In fact, bent on world domination.” It has as its “explicit goal first” the annihilation of Israel, “but also ultimately” the conquest of the Middle East and the threatening [of the US].”

“[E]very territory that is vacated in the Middle East,” noted Netanyahu, is “taken over by the forces of militant Islam, either those led by Iran or those led by ISIS.”

Wait a sec, isn’t Iran fighting ISIS in the Middle East!? Isn’t that a good thing? Doesn’t it mean that Arabs are finally taking out their own trash, instead of expecting Americans do die trying?

Or perhaps Netanyahu is of the position that only Muslims approved by the world superpower (the US) and the region’s superpower (Israel) are fit to fight ISIS?


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Obama’s Choice: Executive Override

Barack Obama, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Iran

By default, given the president’s predilections, the agreement struck between Iran, Barack Obama and the Democrat Party must be called an executive agreement.

Here’s why:

As specified by the Constitution, there are two types of treaties. The first kind has “received the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate and has been ratified by the President.” The second is “called an executive agreement,” because it rests on the president’s “authority to create international agreements with other nations without Senate approval.”

I think it’s safe to say that of the protocols afforded him by the Constitution, Obama will opt for the executive option in finalizing the deal with Iran.

Obama’s Choice is to do executive override.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

‘Beer Talk’ From Blowhards: Pat Buchanan On Iran Hysteria

Britain, Foreign Policy, History, Iran, Israel, Middle East

“Are we going to be frightened by words from an Iranian blowhard?” Pat Buchanan tries to school Sean Hannity on the insignificance of Iran’s military as compared to American and Israeli might (and Bibi’s 200 plus atom bombs). It has not dawned on Mr. Hannity that the Arab alliance forming in the Middle East against ISIS, our mortal enemy, is exactly what the US needs if she is to get the hell out of the business of meddling where we are hated.

I like Pat’s description of Britain ending up on US food stamps because of WWII.

What is so disconcerting is the blowhards of cable. In Pat Buchanan you have a learned man who partook in successive American administration, at crucial times in our history; who has so much too impart. And rather than let him teach you something, you scream him down.

Anti-intellectual.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint