At what point does the US government stop propping up a bad government?
Tuesday, November 1st, this question was asked in a House Armed Services Committee hearing by US House Representative Beto O'Rourke (above).
The US government -- under Bully Boy Bush and Barack Obama both -- backed Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister of Iraq despite Nouri's use of secret prisons, his targeting of Iraq's LGBT community, his use of torture, his attacks -- physical attacks -- on the press, his false imprisonment of Sunnis, his use of the military to attack rival politicians and so much more.
Haider al-Abadi replaced Nouri over a year ago and there's nothing in his performance thus far to indicate he's any different than Nouri.
Grasp that as you read over the exchange between O'Rourke and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.
US House Rep Beto O'Rourke: There's so much in those countries -- I'll just use Iraq as an example -- that we do not control, cannot control and will not be able to predict when it comes to the political outcomes and so when we say we are going to set conditions on our aid, when we say we are going to set conditions on our military presence, do we really mean that? Is that a viable threat? Will we really walk away from Iraq if the government there doesn't meet those conditions? And I think that's an important question because if, in fact, we will not, then I wonder what the motivation is there for the Iraqi government to take the very important and very difficult steps to integrate these other minorities -- whether they be Kurds, whether they be Sunnis -- into a functioning government -- decentralized or otherwise?
Secretary Ash Carter: Uh, first of all with respect to the first part of your question, uhm, the -- It -- The -- Your point gets back -- is exactly the military and the political going together. In addition to the -- The only end state that involves the lasting defeat of ISIL is one in which there are -- whether there is local governance that cannot be once again supplanted by ISIL. That's why once again the political and the military go together -- that's the heart of the strategy and that's why enabling committed, capable forces who can make victory stick is the other part of the definition of victory, critical --
US House Rep Beto O'Rourke: Yes.
Secretary Ash Carter (Con't): -- to the strategy. With respect to the leverage, I'll start there in Baghdad but the leverage involves offering to do more for those who are pursuing the same objectives and withholding our support from those who are taking a different path or not going down the path they're supposed to. So we find alternatives, we find people that can act. If-if-if the people that we're dealing with are not capable of -- because we have to act and we will find such forces that are capable.