Americans should ignore these Sirens of Death. Attempting to forcibly transform Iraq never was Washington's responsibility. Having botched the job once, U.S. policymakers should not try again. There certainly is no public support for new military adventures in Mesopotamia.
What does success against jihadist terrorist groups look like? For all the talk of a Forever War, we might just have an answer now.
After long-simmering sectarian tensions exploded in Iraq a few weeks back, critics from the right and left have had a field day taking their shots at the Obama Administration's Iraq policy, or lack thereof.
The mainstream media cover bits and pieces of the destruction as pumped-up entertainment, with the Iraqis and everyone else trapped in the planet's various International Hot Spots remaining abstractions and curiosities. This is journalistic malfeasance of the highest order.
According to a DeSmogBlog review of White House meeting logs, between 2009 and 2013, the Obama White House held 32 meetings with Cheniere board members and lobbyists.
Republican presidents signed the last three extensions of the VRA, ensuring continuous protection for all Americans. It is that history of support for the Voting Rights Act that makes it so particularly discouraging that the new bipartisan legislation to modernize the act.
I doubt there are many levelheaded individuals who would take seriously anything Cheney offers about Iraq, given his dubious contribution to what can only be considered as an unmitigated disaster.
American intervention has broken pottery all over the Middle East. Every time the U.S. attempts to repair its last accident, it increases and spreads the mess. It is time for a different approach. One in which Washington does not attempt to micromanage the affairs of other nations. In which Washington practices humility. This would not be isolationism. America, and especially Americans, should be engaged in the world. Economic and cultural ties benefit all. Political cooperation can help meet global problems. Humanitarian needs are varied and manifold. Military action sometimes is necessary, but only rarely -- certainly far less often than presumed by Washington.
We ignored our moral imperative to intervene in Syria before it was too late. We cannot abandon Iraq, too.
Have we learned nothing during our adventures in the Middle East and Central Asia?
A Gallup poll published on June 20th shows that the only living current or former occupant of the White House who has a negative rating from the U.S. ...
To say that Cheney's op-ed piece is revisionist history would be a gross understatement. Rather, it's the most mind-numbing case of delusion in political history.
If there can be an argument made that neoconservative rhetoric directly led to the downward spiral of American and Iraqi lives, as well as the decline of our country, then a court somewhere in the U.S. should look into a criminal case.
New Yorkers may not have the best reputation, but there's no denying that we got the smarts to somehow keep this "ungovernable city" humming. That can generate some resentment.
While the Iraqi military, with some help from Iran and the U.S., may be able to hold on to what is left within its purview, it's hard to see it reclaiming much territory without major foreign interventions. Which could easily backfire, both for Tehran and Washington, the only capitals which might be involved.
Armies are meant to fight other armies. Military forces are not designed to combat roadside bombs, civilians with a Kalashnikov, or evade ambush...