One model for Trump governance: the "lethal combination of official arrogance and ineptitude" in Iraq, only worse
It was Maureen Dowd, and not Paul, who led opposition to the Iraq War on the op-ed pages of THE NEW YORK TIMES.
At the end of the day, Paul's just a self-hating Jew who used the anniversary of the execution of the Rosenbergs to applaud the fifties.
Human filth, a neoliberal piece of cat hair.
Paul has lied a lot in public and he's fan base eats it up, creaming their BVDs over their micro-dicked hero while hissing like fixed tabbys at Maureen.
But the reality is, it was Maureen who was there when it counted, not Paul.
Reality's never good for Paul.
Eugene Puryear (LIBERATION NEWS) offers:
One of the most significant fallacies in U.S. foreign policy circles is the idea that there are “no boots on the ground” in the Middle East, a philosophy that politicians trumpet over and over again. Well, there are boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq there are roughly 5,000 troops on the ground and in Syria there are 500, mostly special operations soldiers.
This is consistently portrayed incorrectly in the U.S. media. All U.S. forces are portrayed as “trainers” or support personal, with the implication being that they are more or less out of harm’s way. This is part of a broader attempt by the Pentagon and the Obama administration to try to have their interventions not classified as “wars.” This is a propaganda effect designed to lessen oversight and controls from Congress, and also to keep the people from erupting in anger. Fewer than 50 percent of people in the U.S. support sending troops to Syria; fewer than 30 percent support sending arms to Syrian “rebels.”
Slim majorities of support, or at the very least complacence, can be maintained as long as it appears the U.S. isn’t rushing headlong into new Middle East wars, but anything beyond that risks the eruption of a new anti-war movement that could be political disorienting (and perhaps even destabilizing) for the political elite.
The reality, however, is that the U.S. intervention in both Syria and Iraq is really quite significant if we look beyond pure numbers.
For instance in Iraq, U.S. troops are playing a major role operating artillery to support Iraqi forces advances on the Islamic State. The Kurdish news outlet Rudaw described the U.S. artillery as “pounding” ISIS positions in support of the Iraqi army offensive in Mosul in late December. U.S. forces are also providing spotters for air strikes. In any modern large-scale offensive these are not side pieces, but the necessary ingredients to give the Iraqi military the edge they need to defeat the Islamic State which on their own they were failing to do.
On top of that the U.S. military has now admitted that there are 450 U.S. troops embedded with Iraqi combat units inside of Mosul itself. If that isn’t enough. on January 10 Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter stated that even if the Islamic State is defeated in Iraq, the U.S. will not leave, in fact, he stated that the United States will most likely leave a residual force in the country.
The Mosul Slog continues.
All this time later, Mosul's still not liberated.
Over 144,500 displaced by #Mosulops-humanitarian aid essential for survival of thousands of #Iraq families #Mosulaid http://iomiraq.net/article/0/mosul-emergency-has-now-displaced-over-144500-iraqis-iom …
Mosul is no success story.
But neither is Falluja which was 'liberated' before Mosul.
Barack leaves office this week.
He leaves an ongoing Iraq War behind.
A war, please remember, that he promised to end when he campaigned in 2008.
The following community sites updated:
And new content is going up at THIRD.
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.