Strange Bedfellows Indeed
 There is an old saying that goes something like this... "An enemy of my friend is my enemy, a friend of my friend is my friend."I have thought a lot about that recently especially with regards to the full state visit to Iraq by the President of Iran. If Iraq truly is an ally of the United States, and a supporter of the US in the "war on terror" then why are they welcoming someone like this who shows nothing but open contempt for the United States? Noted columnist Robert Sheer says it best in an article for truthdig.com. Are the media dumb or just out to lunch? Sorry to be intemperate, but how else can one explain the meager attention paid to the truly historic visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Iraq? Not only is he the first Mideast head of state to visit the country since its alleged liberation, but the very warm official welcome offered by the Iraqi government to the most vociferous critic of the United States speaks volumes to the abject failure of the Bush doctrine. [read more] For me, this is proof enough that the leaders in Iraq are not really interested in doing the things necessary to have the type of government that will be a strong ally of the US in the region. While the "surge" has been a military success, those in power in Iraq have apparently used the downturn in violence to improve relationships with longtime US nemesis, Iran. It is time to get out. On a related note, Roy over at Thin Places has a good post on the costs of war with Iraq. |
posted by Dave Miller at 7:02 AM
Comments on "Strange Bedfellows Indeed"
-
Patrick M said ... (2:16 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (2:22 PM) :
-
Patrick M said ... (9:38 PM) :
-
Mike's America said ... (9:13 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (9:52 AM) :
-
James & Emilee said ... (3:07 PM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (4:28 PM) :
-
James & Emilee said ... (3:05 PM) :
post a commentI wouldn't say it's the absolute failure of th Bush doctrine, but id does underscore the nature of Iraq. Its leaders, with Iran resting on the border, are trying to have the best of both worlds, with both US and Iranian support. The Iranians obviously are attempting to sink their claws into Iraq. And we don't want to be perceived as too imperial so we don't interject. Either way it's not good.
In hindsight, I wish we hadn't moved the war to Iraq in the first place. From the fact that the info we were acting on turning out to be inaccurate to the failure of the administration to change tactics sooner, the Iraq theater has been less successful over the years than it could have been. And at this point, either the Iraqis are going to get it, or they won't. I agree that the time to get out is nearer, and we should do so as quickly as it is militarily feasible.
Well said Patrick.
Well, I have more to say. I don't retract my prior comment, but I did want to be clearer, so I did add my own post to the converstion.
Which makes me ask: What's the best way to get out?
So, is Barack Hussein Obama our enemy too?
He's said he would meet with A Mad Jihad in Iran.
And he would invade allies like Pakistan.
The question of meetings is the issue isn't it Mike? Over the years, US gov'ts of both parties have held many face to face meetings and negotiations with our enemies.
How many summits were there with the Soviets. How about negotiations with the Iranians during the hostage takers? And if we believe we should never meet with adversaries without the hope of a deal, or negotiate with terrorists, then why has the Bush Admin. pushed the Israelis to meet with the Palestinians, who they consider terrorists?
Even GOP foreign policy heavyweights like Geo. Schulz and Jim Baker have advocated talking to the Iranians and the Syrians.
All of that is to say that to talk to your enemies, as Obama advocates, is not always bad, as the GOP partisans are now saying.
However, I do not think it is the same as we are seeing in Iraq. This was a state visit where the Pres. of Iran was openly critical of the very people who are propping up the gov't of Iraq and Maliki had nothing to say in response.
It is not unreasonable to ask whether he would rather have Iran or the US as an ally.
If we have Iran on our "Axis of Evil" and they are an ally of Iraq, is the Iraqi gov't really interested in being an ally of the US? It is a reasonable question.
If the answer is no, then we should get out. We cannot be an ally of a country whose government openly supports state sponsored terrorism.
Talking is one thing. US servicemen losing their lives to allow Iraq to cozy up to the Iranians is another.
I don't think its bad for them to welcome their neighbor. Its all in the interest of peace, isn't it? Or is it? I mean, is it really that bad that they don't want to piss off Iran (who Bush thought had a "nuclear" program even though they don't)? We welcomed the Iranian president to New York just a few months ago, so he could speak at one of our colleges. Its a bit hypocritical to not allow Iraq the same. Especially if we've really "liberated" them; they should be "liberated" to make their own decisions as to who is welcome or not in their country. It would be like if Canada suddenly became an enemy of Israel. Should we then kick out all Canadians because they are enemies of our ally? No, they are also our neighbors and we should strive to keep the peace. Not that we could keep anyone out of our country in the first place.
James, you are off the mark on this one. we did not welcome the President of iran into our country. We allowed him to enter to address the UN, but he was not accorded a State visit, as he was in Iran.
I agree that we should be talking to our enemies, under the "keep your friends close and enemies closer" policy, but a stae visit confers a level of legitimacy I do not believe we want for Iran.
touché