Heaven save us from the 'experts'
At LAWFARE, 'expert' Doug Ollivant heaps so much praise on Hayder al-Abadi you'd think the prime minister of Iraq had been edging him for at least two hours.
And you might take Dougie seriously . . . if you're an uninformed idiot.
This is the man, please remember, who insisted in July of 2017 that Nouri al-Maliki was in "a dominant position" and would most likely continue as prime minister of Iraq.
A month later, please remember, Haider al-Abadi was prime minister.
He's not got a very strong record when it comes to being right.
For example, in 2009, when US Col Timothy R. Reese was advocating that all US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by 2010 (and noting the diminishing returns that were already evident on the ground), there was Dougie to pooh-pah it and insisting that this would harm the State Dept control of Iraq.
What State Dept control?
There was none. The US military handed control of Iraq -- a supposed independent country -- over to the US State Dept in October of 2011. But Iraq didn't want the State Dept -- didn't want training, didn't want anything from it. The State Dept, in fact, would turn over US facilities -- built by US tax dollars -- over to Iraq before they had 'controlled' Iraq for 12 months.
The plans of the State Dept -- including embassies throughout Iraq -- never came to pass -- though Brooke Darby did her best to insist that Congress should fully fund them.
Dougie never knows what he's talking about.
He just knows his war-on's wagging and dripping.
Let's be really clear what Doug was arguing against in 2009 -- this was not a drawdown, this was a full withdrawal.
The drawdown, he would insist at the end of 2011, "give[s] space for Iraq politics—both domestic and international—to normalize [. . .] For some pessimists, a further future complication is the continuing centralization of power by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, and a resumption of sectarian tensions. That’s a concern, but those who see him as the “next Saddam” or “Shi’a Saddam” vastly overestimate his powers. Maliki is working to increase the power of the executive, not very differently from most politicians in their country’s respective executive branch."
Oh, how quaint and uninformed.
Those of who were warning about Nouri were the ones who were right.
Those who were pooh-pahing?
Well exactly how did the Islamic State rise in Iraq?
Exactly why did Barack Obama overrule a third term for Nouri as prime minister and instead install Hayder al-Abadi?
Would someone please explain why those who were repeatedly wrong on Iraq still think the world needs to hear from them?
After all the millions killed and wounded, you'd think humility -- if not outright shame -- would cause these idiots and liars to shut their mouths.
But you would be wrong because they keep talking and, most of all, they keep getting it wrong.
It's past time the world made clear to these war enablers that the only words we need from them are, "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I will now shut up."
And you might take Dougie seriously . . . if you're an uninformed idiot.
This is the man, please remember, who insisted in July of 2017 that Nouri al-Maliki was in "a dominant position" and would most likely continue as prime minister of Iraq.
A month later, please remember, Haider al-Abadi was prime minister.
He's not got a very strong record when it comes to being right.
For example, in 2009, when US Col Timothy R. Reese was advocating that all US troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by 2010 (and noting the diminishing returns that were already evident on the ground), there was Dougie to pooh-pah it and insisting that this would harm the State Dept control of Iraq.
What State Dept control?
There was none. The US military handed control of Iraq -- a supposed independent country -- over to the US State Dept in October of 2011. But Iraq didn't want the State Dept -- didn't want training, didn't want anything from it. The State Dept, in fact, would turn over US facilities -- built by US tax dollars -- over to Iraq before they had 'controlled' Iraq for 12 months.
The plans of the State Dept -- including embassies throughout Iraq -- never came to pass -- though Brooke Darby did her best to insist that Congress should fully fund them.
Dougie never knows what he's talking about.
He just knows his war-on's wagging and dripping.
Let's be really clear what Doug was arguing against in 2009 -- this was not a drawdown, this was a full withdrawal.
The drawdown, he would insist at the end of 2011, "give[s] space for Iraq politics—both domestic and international—to normalize [. . .] For some pessimists, a further future complication is the continuing centralization of power by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, and a resumption of sectarian tensions. That’s a concern, but those who see him as the “next Saddam” or “Shi’a Saddam” vastly overestimate his powers. Maliki is working to increase the power of the executive, not very differently from most politicians in their country’s respective executive branch."
Oh, how quaint and uninformed.
Those of who were warning about Nouri were the ones who were right.
Those who were pooh-pahing?
Well exactly how did the Islamic State rise in Iraq?
Exactly why did Barack Obama overrule a third term for Nouri as prime minister and instead install Hayder al-Abadi?
Would someone please explain why those who were repeatedly wrong on Iraq still think the world needs to hear from them?
After all the millions killed and wounded, you'd think humility -- if not outright shame -- would cause these idiots and liars to shut their mouths.
But you would be wrong because they keep talking and, most of all, they keep getting it wrong.
It's past time the world made clear to these war enablers that the only words we need from them are, "I'm sorry. I was wrong. I will now shut up."
