Furthering a Failed Strategy, Obama To Send More Ground Troops to Iraq

Critics say that everything the administration is doing in Middle East is making things worse, not better.

By Jon Queally

In a move anti-war critics and foreign policy experts are certain to call simply an extension of a policy that has proved a failure, the New York Times reports the Obama administration is planning to build a new military base in the western part of Iraq and send additional ground troops in an attempt to turn the tide against Islamic State (ISIS) forces who have continued to take and hold ground on sides of the Syrian border in recent weeks.

After recent advances by ISIS that allowed them to capture the city of Ramadi in Iraq’s Anbar Province, the Pentagon is talking openly about sending what it calls “additional trainers” to bolster the Iraqi army in the Sunni-dominated region that skirts Syria.

As the Times reports:

In a major shift of focus in the battle against the Islamic State, the Obama administration is planning to establish a new military base in Anbar Province, Iraq, and to send 400 more American military trainers to help Iraqi forces retake the city of Ramadi. […]

The additional American troops will arrive as early as this summer, a United States official said, and will focus on training Sunni fighters with the Iraqi Army. The official called the coming announcement “an adjustment to try to get the right training to the right folks.”

Though there are already approximately 3,000 U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq, President Obama made headlines on Monday when he spoke from the G7 summit in Germany and admitted that the U.S. did not yet have a “complete strategy” for dealing with ISIS.

However, as Jason Ditz writes at, the idea to send additional U.S. troops to Iraq was not entirely unexpected,

as President Obama had previously indicated this his primary goal at this point was to speed up the training of Iraqi troops. The new troops are being labeled “trainers,” but are likely to be among those that Pentagon officials are openly talking about “embedding” on the front lines, meaning they’d be sent into direct combat.

As losses have mounted in Iraq and Syria, with ISIS taking more and more cities, the Pentagon has repeatedly rejected the idea that the strategy was at all flawed, and has tried to blame Iraqi troops for not winning more. The US appears to be doubling down on this narrative by adding troops.

But according to critics of Obama’s foreign policy and war strategy in Syria and Iraq, everything the administration is doing “right now is making the situation worse” – not better.

That is the sentiment of Phyllis Bennis, senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, who in a recent interview with the Real News Network said the Pentagon’s plan to send more weapons and troops (whether you call them “trainers” or “advisers” or something else) will only prolong the violence in the region. Describing the situation as “whack-a-mole,” Bennis said the outcomes over the last year have been terrible and that a continuation of the strategy would predictably create more chaos and death for the people of Iraq and Syria.

“We suddenly have the challenge of dealing with ISIS in Ramadi in Iraq,” she explained, “so we’re going to send a huge amount of resources, soldiers and new weapons and whatever, to Ramadi, where in the meantime whether it’s in Syria, whether it’s in Iraq, there are other crisis zones that are being created, even as we speak. And the more weapons that get sent, the more weapons end up in the hands of ISIS. That’s true in Iraq, it’s true in Syria.”

She continued:

As long as we keep saying we have to do the military stuff better, we have to do more weapons, we have to do more training, we have to change the training, we have to train this group rather than that group, it’s not going to work. It hasn’t worked yet. And it simply isn’t going to work, because every one of those military actions ends up creating more anger, more opposition, even in those rare occasions when the U.S. gets the person they’re actually aiming at rather than 15 innocent civilians who happen to be surrounding them. Even in those situations, those people have families and friends and villages and tribes and religious groups that they’re part of who are outraged at the U.S. military assaults. And every bit of that outrage over time, as it gets worse and worse, and deeper and deeper, it turns into greater support for the most extremist terrorist elements. So this is a failed strategy.

Meanwhile, in a lengthy article published in The Nation, Sherle R. Schwenninger, director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation and a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, argues that the disaster fostered by the U.S. in Iraq and Syria proves without question the overall failure of Obama’s foreign policy mindset. Though he acknowledges that the prevailing criticism in Washington, D.C.—from liberal interventionists and the neoconservatives that drove and supported the failed policies of President George W. Bush—is that Obama has been too timid in his handling of the war in Syria and Iraq, Schwenninger says the reality, in fact, is that “the administration has been too quick on the draw.” If Obama had not worked to funnel supplies of weapons into the region or “done more to restrain our allies from supporting foreign jihadi fighters in both Syria and Iraq,” says Schwenninger, it is possible that “ISIS would not be on the march to the degree that it is today.”

However, he continued, “by helping to open the floodgates for both weapons and fighters, the administration is now looking at an endless new war that will only bleed us morally as well as financially. If Obama had actually acted with the restraint that his critics accuse him of, can anyone seriously say we would be worse off?”

Importantly, Schwenninger points out that among those saying that Obama’s policy is not aggressive enough when it comes to Iraq and Syria, are the same people—including Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham and other prominent war hawks—”who cheered us into the war in Iraq.” The credentials of these critics, he argues, should have thoroughly discredited them, “but over the last several years, they have had a disproportionate influence in shaping a narrative of US foreign policy that is almost as misguided as the one they spun in the lead-up to the Iraq War.”

And while the fighting continues and the war expands with the sending of more foreign weapons and troops, who benefits?

According to Bennis, it’s certainly not the Iraqi or Syrian people.

“The people who benefit,” she told the RNN, “are the CEOs and the shareholders of these giant corporations who make the planes and the bombs and the bullets and the teargas, and all of the weapons that are being sold to all the different sides. They are the ones who are a huge stumbling block.”

But if more weapons and an expanded military footprint by the U.S. are not the answer, what is? Bennis says the answer to that question has always been the same: a call for both a cease fire and a regional arms embargo, followed by serious diplomatic efforts. Explaining what that might look like, she said:

Well, I think you start from the vantage point that if you’re serious about diplomacy, everybody has to be at the table. You don’t exclude anyone because you think they’re a terrorist, or you think they might not abide by the agreements. Because if you exclude people, you’re giving them the excuse to violate any agreement that’s reached. This was the lesson that former senator George Mitchell brought back after helping to negotiate the Good Friday accords in Northern Ireland. He said if you’re serious about diplomacy, everybody has to be at the table.

So if we start from that vantage point, if we’re talking about talks to end the Syrian civil war, Iran has to be at the table. Part of the reason the talks failed the last two times was that the U.S. took the position that Iran is prohibited. Iran can’t come, because they’re part of the problem. Well, they are part of the problem. So is the U.S. But the problem is if you ignore the people who are part of the problem, they’re not ever going to become part of the solution. So yes, Iran has to be at the table. Russia has to be at the table. The Syrian regime has to be at the table. All of the Syrian opposition forces have to be at the table.

The U.S. allies in the region that are arming and paying all of those opposition forces, some of whom are extremist Muslims, the Nusra Front. Some are more secular forces. But the strongest ones, the ones with the biggest presence and the strongest presence on the ground, are all Islamist. They need to be at the table. Those governments that are arming them, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, all those governments have to be at the table.

This is going to be big, regional, and indeed global negotiations that should be under the auspices of the United Nations. People say, well, how can you talk about negotiating, you can’t talk to ISIS. They’re crazy. I’m not necessarily saying that you start with direct talks with ISIS. That may or may not be possible at a later point. But at the initial point, you must talk to those who are enabling ISIS. That means talking to the governments that are responsible for arming, that are providing the arms that ISIS is stealing, and that are directly supporting ISIS and ISIS-linked forces, like in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Gulf. That also means you have to support the presence at the table not only of the government of Syria, for example, the government of Bashar al-Assad. But you also have to have at the table those who are arming and paying that regime. So that means that Russia and Iran have a major role to play.

In the end, Bennis concluded, an arms embargo may be the hardest part to imagine, because “that’s where people are making money off of these wars.”


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Previous post

Judge disqualifies three jurors during James Holmes death penalty trial

Next post

Late Night FDL: 'Revolution'




  1. jo6pac
    June 10, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    I’m so disappointed in you CT and wonder why you can’t see this as jobs program. Hell dod will have to hire one their favorite vendors with a no bid contract and then almost no work will be done to really help Amerikas under paid warriors.
    Yes, fast food vendors will be every where supplied dod vendors.
    The new Amerikan dream, only Americas citizen and the world citizens have been thrown under the bus.

  2. starrynight
    June 10, 2015 at 8:53 pm

    what say you

  3. June 10, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    *heh* I’m sooo sorry, jo…! I must’ve missed Halliburton’s memo…! 😉

  4. June 10, 2015 at 9:33 pm

    From The Hill… Obama pulls US deeper into Iraq

    “It’s too late, man,” Congressman Duncan Hunter said. “They’re just trying to plug the dyke with their fingers right now.”

  5. Screwtape
    June 10, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    It’s dreadful news. Reminds me of the early 1960s and so called “advisers” beginning to stream toward Southeast Asia. I was almost draft age then.

    Make no mistake, it doesn’t matter what they are called now, yet again. Heaven forbid any get captured in the ME.

  6. June 10, 2015 at 9:53 pm

    Kudos to the Senate Dims… Dems want to ban U.S. ground troops against ISIS

    “There is nothing about the last ten years of American occupation in
    Iraq that tells us that U.S. troops inside Iraq can have the effect of
    killing more terrorists that are created.” – Sen. Chris Murphy

  7. June 10, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    Incidently, I did consider getting a job with AAFES, once…! 😉

  8. bsbafflesbrains
    June 10, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    If only our Troop Trainers were competent. They have been hard at it for 12 years now and even grading on a curve it’s a FAIL. US corruption rivals any out there by the so called third World Countries. It is not a failed or failing strategy to retask the training effort it is NO strategy. Joe6 says it all; it is merely continuing a proven money maker for the MICCC.

  9. dubinsky
    June 10, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    Bennis is clueless and pushing a line of crap that is sophomoric.

  10. June 10, 2015 at 10:16 pm

    Once again ya chime in with utter BS, dub…! 8-(

  11. JohnRedican
    June 10, 2015 at 10:18 pm

    This is starting to look like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Can a government exhibits OCD symptoms? Well, I only wish they’d chosen the variety where the patient is compelled to wash their hands repeatedly.

  12. dubinsky
    June 10, 2015 at 10:20 pm

    THIS is the story, not that pile that Tuttle has strung together……

    Al-Qaida ‘cut off and ripped apart by Isis’

    ” Two of al-Qaida’s most important spiritual leaders have told the Guardian that the terror group is no longer a functioning organisation after being ripped apart by Isis. In a wide-ranging interview, Abu Qatada, a Jordanian preacher who was based in London before being deported in 2013, and Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, regarded as the most influential jihadi scholar alive, say the al-Qaida leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is cut off from his commanders and keeping the group afloat through little more than appeals to loyalty.”
    ” Isis was al-Qaida’s branch in the heart of the Middle East until the group was excommunicated from the network in 2014 after disobeying commands from Zawahiri and starting an internecine war with fellow jihadists in Syria which left thousands dead on both sides. Today that fight continues and has expanded across Eurasia and the Mediterranean. Since declaring the establishment of its so-called Islamic State a year ago, Isis has gone on to build a global network of affiliates and branches that now stretches from Afghanistan to west Africa and competes with al-Qaida in its scale.

    Isis leaders, who described al-Qaida as a “drowned entity” in issue six of their official English-language publication, Dabiq, have declared that they will not tolerate any other jihadi group in territory where they are operating. They have readily delivered on that statement. Last week, Isis fighters in Afghanistan werereported to have beheaded 10 members of the Taliban, and on Wednesday al-Qaida in Libya vowed retaliation after blaming Isis for the death of one of its leaders.

    But the US has been slow to grasp the implications of al-Qaida’s decline and possible collapse despite extensive study of Isis, according to intelligence community insiders. “There’s such a cadre of people so closely tied to the al-Qaida brand within the IC [intelligence community] that I think they don’t see what else is going on outside the organisation,” said Derek Harvey, a former intelligence analyst who predicted how resilient the Iraq insurgency would be.

    Over the past year, a group of junior and mid-level analysts have concluded that Isis advances have pushed al-Qaida to the margins of global jihad. A former senior intelligence official who did not want to speak on the record said they had been tracking the split between the two groups with great attention.”


    understand this and you might understand why the admin is considering setting up a base near to Syria in

  13. June 10, 2015 at 10:21 pm

    The Psychopaths running our misbegotten FP do have to wash the blood off their hands daily…! 8-(

  14. dubinsky
    June 10, 2015 at 10:23 pm

    sorry, you simply don’t know a hawk from a handsaw…… and your braying isn’t gonna change that. only thing that will is ending your reliance on on other fools as source material.

  15. June 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    Cognitive dissonance much, dubs…?

  16. jaango
    June 10, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    Welcome to America’s “Bag of Bull Shit!”
    For those of us that are “racial and ethnics” from here in the Sonoran Desert, President Obama and his politically in-artful Buds, need only to invite Iran and Saudi Arabia to sit down and agree to terminate their “proxy wars.”
    Alas, the “Bag of Bull Shit” will only get more expansive given that the National Monument to Criminal Stupidity, has yet to established on our nation’s capitol mall.

  17. June 10, 2015 at 10:32 pm

    That’s about it, jaango…!

  18. angryspittle
    June 10, 2015 at 10:36 pm

    This reminds me of what I told my history students during my 35 years of teaching.

    The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t.

  19. June 10, 2015 at 10:39 pm

    George Santayana is still rolling in his grave, as…! 8-(

  20. dubinsky
    June 10, 2015 at 10:39 pm

    happily for you, having to intelligently consider a multitude of facts and from them form a reasoned analysis, is nothing that has intruded upon your simplicity.

  21. dubinsky
    June 10, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    yup, invite the Iranians and Saudis to take tea and chat will really convince them to abandon their religious views, political organizations, cultural antipathy and raging conflict.

  22. Pluto
    June 10, 2015 at 10:54 pm

    How richly Americans deserve this additional tragedy, carved out of their blood and treasure.

  23. Pluto
    June 10, 2015 at 11:00 pm
  24. dubinsky
    June 10, 2015 at 11:08 pm

    it ain’t on sale.

    news analysis ain’t like your Chinese athletic shoes.

  25. Hugh
    June 10, 2015 at 11:49 pm

    This is a wonderful study in historical amnesia. 8 1/2 years ago, Bush announced his “surge”, whose purpose was to create a space in which a political settlement among Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia could be made. This, of course, never happened. There was a reduction in violence but this was mainly due to the success of ethnic cleansing and the US practice of buying off Sunni militias. The war’s supporters, nevertheless, hailed the surge as a great success, despite its failure to achieve, let alone address its stated goal. US forces left Iraq at the end of 2011. Obama wanted to leave troops in the country, but a last minute deal was killed by negative public reaction in Iraq to the light sentences given out to US soldiers involved in the Haditha massacre. Now I see politicians and pundits on cable intoning that more US “trainers” need to be tied to reductions in sectarianism (i.e. admitting the failure of the surge). The thing is that the only effective fighting forces against ISIS are sectarian: the Kurdish peshmerga and the Shia militias, and the current prime minister al-Abadi is a member of the very sectarian Dawa party.

    Iraq was a very messed up place before we invaded the place. We certainly messed it up even more, but we left at the end of 2011. At some point, the Iraqis have got to take responsibility for their sectarianism. In brief, this is not our fight. Just because the US is hegemon does not make every war on the planet our war. ISIS is primarily a matter for Syria and Iraq to handle. After them, it is up to the regional powers, like Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel to deal with it. And only very, very far behind them should it be a concern of the US. Just because everyone in the region is willing to have us shed American blood and spend American treasure to fight their wars doesn’t mean we have to oblige them.

  26. dubinsky
    June 11, 2015 at 12:15 am

    do you know anything about Duncan Hunter?

  27. June 11, 2015 at 1:34 am

    Syria and Iraq could likely deal with ISIS were it not that Turkey, KSA, and Qatar, along with the CIA and NATO, were suppling it with arms and training their fighters.

    The hegemon is neck deep involved in stirring up all this shit, Hugh.

    “Just because everyone in the region is willing to have us shed American blood and spend American treasure to fight their wars doesn’t mean we have to oblige them.”

    This is a jaw-droppingly reality detached statement… WTF, Hugh?

    Logistics 101: Where Does ISIS Get Its Guns?
    First appeared:

  28. June 11, 2015 at 1:40 am

    Do you know anything about the lackey to empire (Corporations, Bankers, MIC) Obama?

  29. dubinsky
    June 11, 2015 at 1:56 am

    of course, that has spit to do with Duncan Hunter, but

    when my son was writing in 2008 that Obama was going to completely change Bush’s foreign policy, I tried to warn him that he was going to be disappointed.

    but then I’m used to carefully listening and parsing the substance of speeches made by lawyers…..and he wasn’t.

  30. dubinsky
    June 11, 2015 at 2:14 am

    so how did you get into slinging hash?

  31. June 11, 2015 at 2:23 am

    “Obama pulls US deeper into Iraq”

    Understanding whose interests Obama’s foreign policy serves has spit to do with the headline?

    As for Duncan Hunter…seems like you’re edging on entering the tu quoque fallacy zone…

    As for your “careful listening” skills…bwahhhh!

  32. starrynight
    June 11, 2015 at 2:39 am

    we’ll send more stuff. more mic dole

  33. starrynight
    June 11, 2015 at 2:42 am

    this is our fruit for the earth. more war

  34. dubinsky
    June 11, 2015 at 2:47 am

    I suggest that anyone quoting Hunter is best served by having some familiarity with his positions, ape.

    and, given what you write and think wise, I don’t much worry about your judgment of my skill level.

  35. June 11, 2015 at 3:15 am

    So tu quoque fallacy it is?

    KO-yourself out, dub.

  36. dubinsky
    June 11, 2015 at 3:21 am

    you best learn to know what you’re talking about and learn the definition of the term that you’re incorrectly applying

  37. JamesJoyce
    June 11, 2015 at 6:37 am

    “We have all been here before,” while people are “bound and gagged.”

    “Ike” was correct about the War Machine, and profit.

  38. JamesJoyce
    June 11, 2015 at 6:49 am

    It was never about democracy in Iraq. it is all about this….

    “KARABILA, Iraq, Feb. 18 — In a remote patch of the Anbar desert just 20 miles from the Syrian border, a single blue pillar of flanges and valves sits atop an enormous deposit of oil and natural gas that would be routine in this petroleum-rich country except for one fact: this is Sunni territory.”

    “Huge petroleum deposits have long been known in Iraq’s Kurdish north and Shiite south. But now, Iraq has substantially increased its estimates of the amount of oil and natural gas in deposits on Sunni lands after quietly paying foreign oil companies tens of millions of dollars over the past two years to re-examine old seismic data across the country and retrain Iraqi petroleum engineers.”

    Some pieces are worth saving the links to.

    Motive , means and opportunity….

    Wake up America, you are being played.

  39. FukTheArmy
    June 11, 2015 at 7:11 am

    The troops are NOT incompetent, it’s the flawed strategy and the criminal political leadership, the GIs are mere pawns….sacrificial lambs being wasted by our ‘dear leaders’, Chimpy followed by Obama.

    I’ve seen this movie before, in Vietnam.

  40. FukTheArmy
    June 11, 2015 at 7:18 am

    The 5 O’clock follies, revisited.

  41. bsbafflesbrains
    June 11, 2015 at 7:23 am

    Agree, should word that If only the high command’s strategy of training Iraqi troops were competent.

  42. FukTheArmy
    June 11, 2015 at 7:37 am

    Well, so far we’ve seen that Vietnamization works just as well in Iraq as it did in Vietnam, with the same results.
    Like the ARVN, the “new Iraqi army” doesn’t have the will to fight, and there is nothing we can do to change that. It’s a fool’s errand to even try.

    Sorry about any typos, I’m no good without my morning coffee, which I haven’t had yet.

  43. JamesJoyce
    June 11, 2015 at 7:40 am

    America has been conditioned via media for the past two years. It started with the first story of ISIS taking a refinery in Saddam’s home city. The mantra has been constant and horrible…

    This crisis set in motion the cause and effect reality called Iran today.

    “The Abadan Crisis occurred from 1951 to 1954, after Iran nationalized the Iranian assets of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and expelled Western companies from oil refineries in the city of Abadan (see Abadan Refinery).” BP, today!

    History is ripe with examples of appearances and deceptions…

    History will not treat this incursion well. The reality in Iraq, was intentional, the rise of ISIS coddled and the desire was always “The “Prize.” In achieving that goal, nothing is off the table….

    “The deposit beneath is the Akkas field, one of the beads on the string that runs from Ninewa Province in the north to the border with Saudi Arabia in the south.

    “It’s phenomenal standing here,” General Allen said. “What this does is it gives Anbar and the Sunnis an economic future different from phosphate and cement,” he said, referring to products of some of the aging factories in the area.”

    “This gives them a future and a hope,” he said. Nearby, a few pieces of laundry flapped in front of one of the only structures in sight, a cinder-block shack” probably belonging to a shepherd.”

    Black Gold, Texas Tea and Impeccable English, from an ISIS fighter gave it all away!

  44. mulp
    June 11, 2015 at 11:38 am

    Obama is only doing what We the People who vote in ALL elections want.

    If it was not more war in the Persian Gulf region, then McCain, McConnell, Graham, Cruz, Boehner, Rubio, et al would have either been defeated in their initial run for Congress or defeated for reelection when their demands for far greater US war making was clear.

    Obama does not see himself as dictator but as the representative of ALL voters in ALL elections trying to implement the laws passed by Congress in the most rational way.

    The law passed in haste a few days after 911 declaring endless global war on scary people the president must name is still on the books because We the People who vote in ALL elections have not demanded to know who will repeal the law so those candidate for Congress can be defeated.

    Is Rand Paul popular because he is anti-war, or because he is anti-tax and is willing to end the standing army if required to end Social Security and Medicare? Given all the other members of the Republican Party that supports him, I’d say he is simply anti-tax anti-Federal government to a greater extreme than the rest of the Republican Party that is anti-tax and pro-pillage and plunder war to get mineral wealth wherever the US can. And the voters want war for profit and glory.

    Expressing anti-war views by not voting is ineffective because only voters get represented.

    By the way, its also very confusing when you are anti-war and then demand something be done to end mass human rights violations in Africa, Asia, Latin America. Especially when progressives so willingly fund these human rights violations by buying gasoline and heating oil all the time. If all those who say they oppose war stopped buying any oil products, the price would crash and Islamic State would have no money from oil to fund their pillage and plunder.

  45. June 11, 2015 at 11:49 am

    “news analysis” – heh…

    News, dubs, is what is cooked up and dished out by the propagandists who control it.

    The analysis of “news” is, well, here:

    “The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.””

  46. June 11, 2015 at 1:51 pm

    Obamacare: Corporately mandated, unregulated Health Insurance
    Obamatrade: TPP, TTIP, TISA
    Obamawar: Syraq, AfPak, Eastern Ukraine, Russia on deck

  47. June 11, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    But in the Vietnam scenario we didn’t create the Vietcong and support them with weapons drops and local logistics intel as Peace Prize has done with ISIS.

  48. June 11, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    What treasure might you be talking about?

    Just have the Fed keep printing that Yellen green ultra plush. $18 tril with a T and counting. The debt was “only” $10 trillion under Bush.

  49. Hugh
    June 11, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    You are committing the Chomskyan fallacy that the world would be just fine if we weren’t “stirring the pot”. It assumes that the hegemon really is running everything, just poorly. While critical of Western policies, it retains the West’s neocolonial viewpoint. It ignores and denies that the peoples of the world have their own histories for which they are responsible, and this includes the conflicts between them and between them and previous hegemons, and that some of these conflicts date back centuries, long before our post-WWII advent on the scene as new hegemon.

  50. dubinsky
    June 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm

    up yours. the analysis is from far better and more decent people than yourself.

  51. June 11, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    I seriously doubt that Chomsky would come within a mile to making a claim that but for the US sociopaths pissing on the world and the American public “the world would be just fine.”

    So, unless you can cite him, you are starting the comment out with a straw man.

    “It ignores and denies that the peoples of the world have their own histories for which they are responsible, and this includes the conflicts between them…”

    WTF? It is the hubris of the US foreign policy establishment which, ignoring historical regional, cultural and religious regional relationships imagines itself (pretends) competent and duty bound to impose neo-feudal western “values” via 1000 bases and financial warfare.

    The Sunnis and Shiites, coexisted well enough under Saddam in Iraq, and the various religious sects under the secular rule of Assad in Syria., until the neocons decided to meddle…
    “Our” post WWII entry is merely the passing of the baton from the British to the US empire which refuses to let others take responsibility for themselves, and instead opts to press its boot in their face whenever it finds them standing in the way of the aspirations of the US’s .001% oligarchs.

  52. June 11, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Riiight, establishment corporate media toeing the western values line, be it the Guardian, BBC, Haaretz, Lebanon Daily Star, or whatever else you’ll conjure up as your “reliable” sources…

    You can analyze fact-less “news” till the cows come home and be no closer to reality than a resident of an asylum, dub. Your self-applauding, yes-man, authoritarian submissiveness is cringe-worthy.

  53. dubinsky
    June 11, 2015 at 6:35 pm

    sorry, ape. your reflexive nonsense doesn’t serve.

  54. June 11, 2015 at 6:45 pm

    Your predictable “Good German” fluffery of the PTB, OTOH, is of great service to the security of the indispensable nation…

    Carry on the good work, dub.