The United States is in danger of losing its clout in Baghdad. Courage on the battlefield is how respect is won in the Middle East. The lack of U.S. presence in the fight for Tikrit is allowing Iran, whose forces are leading the charge, to gain leverage in Baghdad. FP’s Lara Jakes and Kate Brannen: “It is clear that the top U.S. priority in Iraq is to defeat the Islamic State — and deal later with Iran’s ever-growing influence in Baghdad. Yet that trade-off carries long-term consequences, and it’s not clear Washington has thought them through.”
The article they link to is a bit more complex -- a bit. But Francis and Muscat can't stop advocating for boots on the ground while pretending they're doing nothing of the sort.
Lara Jakes did some strong reporting on Iraq with the Associated Press.
Based on her latest, we have to wonder if her strong reporting wasn't actually created in editing done by others?
There is so much wrong with the article she co-wrote.
Including that the US is losing influence because it's not being seen as strong.
Hey Lara, how stupid are you?
Or just a whore for war these days?
If the US was not being seen as strong in Iraq, would the Tehran - Baghdad alliance really be begging for US air strikes on Tikrit?
Iran sends some thugs into Iraq and though Democrats and Republicans in Congress can call it out, Barack has to be silent because he wants that treaty that he sees as the only thing that can save his foreign policy legacy.
So the world is held hostage to that.
Iran does not belong in Iraq.
It's a neighbor!
Yeah, and it belongs beside the country. Their military does not belong in Iraq.
(Nor does the US military. But we've been making that point here for about 11 years now.)
Nor, Guardian nonsense excepted, do Iraqis want the Iranian military in their country.
This has come up repeatedly in the years of the Iraq War.
Sunnis don't want it, Kurds don't want it and a significant amount of Shi'ites don't want it.
Now there are the traitors.
The 'Iraqi' leading the assault on Tikrit, for example, the former Transportation Minister.
In the Iraq - Iran war, the traitor fought on Iran's side.
How he now serves in the Iraqi government?
I have no idea.
But when you take up arms against your country to fight with another country, that usually is the definition of traitor.
There's no ambiguity there.
Now there were some, like the traitor, who fought on Iran's side.
But the larger Shi'ite population in Iraq was not and is not fond of Iran.
There are the disputes over land boundaries, there are the disputes over fishing rights, there is this long, complicated history.
There's also the reality that Iran has not provided Iraqi with millions and billions.
And that Iran really can't afford to.
The US has significant influence in Iraq -- militarily and diplomatically -- but it refuses to use that influence because, heaven forbid, Barack doesn't get his little meaningless treaty (one that would most likely be used for nothing other than to declare Iran in violation of the treaty and allow the US to go to war with Iran as has long been planned).
Lara Jakes shows a real dumb ass side of herself as she co-covers the request for bombs on Tikrit.
The US can't do that.
If they do, it's ground for impeachment.
They cannot allow Iran to call in strikes -- and that's what would be happening.
Iran would like nothing better than to wipe out Tikrit (due to Saddam Hussein).
If the White House allowed air strikes on Tikrit, that would be a huge problem for Congress.
Democrats are trying to be patient with Barack on this never-ending negotiation.
(Every Democratic Senator I talked to about the treaty last week felt that Barack, despite his claim, was not prepared to walk away if it's a bad treaty.)
But they would not support allowing Iran to determine where the US needed to bomb.
They wouldn't trust the calls and they shouldn't.
Lara's a bit of joke when you think about it.
Did Iran turn over property to Iraq?
Lara, can you answer that because I seem to remember you ass at one Congressional hearing this was discussed at.
If you were at multiple hearings you know Hillary Clinton's got an honesty problem.
You know the e-mails are part of her disgraceful leadership at the State Dept.
Why wasn't Congress informed that Hillary's State Dept had decided to void land-lease agreements in Iraq? Why wasn't Congress informed that Hillary's State Dept was turning over US facilities to Iraq -- at no cost after US tax payers had already footed the bill for millions to construct these US facilities?
Should they have been turned over?
That's a debate we can engage in.
We couldn't when it was happening because, as usual, Hillary wasn't being honest.
The e-mails go to her entire failure at the State Dept.
She was nothing but a spokesmodel.
She traveled the world seeking press and got it.
But she didn't get honest with the American people or the Congress about what she was doing.
And when a Lara Jakes can get off their lazy ass and connect the dots, the e-mails are the least of Hillary's problems.
But they're too busy trying to force the White House to send ground troops into Iraq to do their actual job which is supposed to be reporting.
The following community sites -- plus NPR music, Jody Watley, The Diane Rehm Show and Black Agenda Report -- updated:
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.