The Missing Follow Up Question: Why Iraq is Still a Landmine for Jeb and Marco
Over the last week the various talking heads have come to a consensus on two points about Iraq. One, given what we know now OF COURSE it was a mistake to go to war on Iraq. And two, why on Earth weren’t Jeb and Marco prepared to answer this obvious question in that obvious way? Well I think there are any numbers of reasons why they fell into this trap, but perhaps the simplest is this:
“Governor Bush/Senator Rubio, having conceded that with the 20/20 advantage of hindsight that YOU wouldn’t have made the decision to go to war, and moreover insist that President G.W. Bush wouldn’t have either, why have you each hired as top foreign policy advisers people who were not only centrally involved in making that decision, but deny to this date that it even WAS a mistake?”
Jeb, who was a PNAC Vulcan, and Marco, who is positioning himself as the heir to Neo-Con-ism, are STILL relying on PNAC Signatories of either the 1997 Statement of Principles or the 1998 Letter to President Clinton on Iraq. It is one thing to agree “Mistakes were made” and another to say “Hey what the hell, why not give the mistake makers another bite at the apple?” Maybe because they don’t even AGREE that they made any mistakes to start with?
Marco Rubio Wants to Make Neocons Cool Again
Meet the Bush-era the hawks who have shaped the presidential hopeful’s foreign policy views.
—By Pema Levy
| Wed May 13, 2015 11:59 AM EDT
Robert Kagan, Elliott Abrams, Eric Edelman and a new one to me – a real piece of work:
jamie fly
Fly, who joined Rubio’s Senate staff in January 2013 as a foreign and national security affairs adviser, held a series of posts in the Bush administration, including jobs with the National Security Council and in the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When Bush left office, Fly was tapped to lead the Foreign Policy Initiative, an organization founded by William Kristol in 2009 to advocate for muscular foreign policy positions and serve as an incubator of young neocon talent.
His most notable foreign policy treatise is a 2012 paper, co-authored with neoconservative scholar Gary Schmitt, that advocates for a US attack on Iran—not just a few airstrikes to impede Iran’s nuclear program, but a major assault that would also “destabilize the regime”:
a limited military strike would only be a temporary fix… If the United States seriously considers military action, it would be better to plan an operation that not only strikes the nuclear program but aims to destabilize the regime, potentially resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all.
(Bruce here – if that all sounds familiar, well it should)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeb-bush-distance-from-bush-foreign-policy-legacy-doesnt-include-advisers/
ByReena FloresCBS NewsFebruary 18, 2015, 12:23 PM
Jeb Bush’s foreign policy advisers
In addition to Baker and Chertoff, Bush has also recruited Stephen Hadley, who served as President George W. Bush’s national security adviser, and Tom Ridge, the first homeland security secretary. They are among over twenty advisers who have thrown in their hat with the Florida governor.
Among them, some other notable names:
-Porter Gross, CIA Director during George W. Bush’s post-9/11 years
-Paul Wolfowitz, former deputy defense secretary and former World Bank president
-George Schultz, secretary of state under former President Reagan
-John Hannah, a former staffer to Vice President Dick Cheney
(i suspect some of these guys make sure they don’t vacation too close to the War Crimes Tribunals at The Hague)
35 million hungry in the US and the pentagon trough is overflowing with upper class welfare.
The military industry congress complex is all about permanent war. Democrats are not far from PNAC object of permanent Keynesian stimulus for the pentagon troughers.
PNAC jargon and neocon dogma put lipstick of zeal on the same pentagon pig that all are kissing or be called “soft on security”.
The latest pig being painted has US (useless) bombing Saudi proxies in Iraq and Syria and supplying Saudis to fight Shiites in (useless bombing in) Yemen and the (missile defenses that don not work) Gulf.
We need to ask “who is going to back the pentagon down” Iraq con story is a distraction.
Josh Marshall at TPM is on the job
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/iraq-war-supporters-run-for-the-hills
“As Jeb Bush was tying himself into a pretzel over the Iraq War last week, a curious silence emanated from the usual cadre of Iraq War architects, boosters, and hangers-on.
The willingness of Bush’s Republican primary rivals to criticize him for initially saying he supported the war — even knowing what is known now — was itself remarkable and suggests a watershed moment in the GOP’s reckoning with disaster of the Iraq War. But also notable was the dog that didn’t bark.
TPM reached out to a number of key figures in the run-up to the Iraq War, most of whom would not comment. We did find some Iraq War supporters who would talk, but rather than affirmatively defending the decision to go to war, they dismissed the line of questioning Jeb Bush faced as “unfair” or attributed the Iraq War failures to big government “throwing money” at the problem. ”
Josh goes on to mention names of those Vulcans who did speak and those who didn’t. And hits all the usual suspects. A good read on this.
CoRev I don’t care to re-litigate every bit of sociopathic denialism you posted from 2003-2008 on this topic. Your comments will be treated as Spam on my posts. Good bye
I have a different question. If you were President, would you in a future conflict also tell the UN Weapons Inspectors to leave a country within 48 hours, even if they were almost finished with their job, and had found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction?
CoRev take it to an Open Thread. Or complain to Dan.
You are not a welcome guest at my party. And your 1st Amendment Rights stop being operative at my front door.
“we can clearly see where that is taking the ME and in general the world.”
Uh, no. Obama’s policies didn’t cause ISIS or the current crisis in Yemen. Obama’s policies don’t run the government or the military in Iraq. Obama isn’t president of the ME. Obama didn’t order a US military invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Obama did follow a US troop withdrawal timetable established by the Bush administration, necessitated by a lack of a status of forces agreement with Iraq.
“the voters will speak next year.”
Indeed they will. Obama won’t be on the ballot. But there is no evidence that most US voters support a re-occupation of Iraq of any other country in the ME.
Biden had the answer: break up Iraq, the third Sunnis could have their country, and the 2/3 Shiites could have theirs.
Ramadi just “fell” to ISIS.
The Iraqi army did not fight. It was not so much they were too green as Obomber says, it is they were not motivated. The Iraqi army is not popular in Ramadi, even the Iraqi army that left the Shiite militia in Baghdad. That Iraqi army is like the ARVN disjointed from the mission.
Like Vietnam the government in Baghdad is not in vogue with the Sunnis.
A US occupation would look like Vietnam! The Sunni’s being the VC, ISIS being the NVA and Saudi Arabia being Russia sending in money.
I almost wish I knew what happened.
Almost.