Posted on Nov 14, 2015
Whose hands will be awash in the blood of the terrorist attacks in Paris?
13.6K
32
57
15
15
0
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/14/paris-terror-attacks-attackers-dead-mass-killing-live-updates
The simple answer is the perpetrators whomever they may be. However, few will be satisfied with the simple answer, will they?
The popular approach of applying critical theory will demand that we look to the motivations of the perpetrators much as other crimes are mitigated by assigning blame to a turbulent childhood or social injustice.
I suspect that blame will eventually land on the shores of the United States where the ideologues will scramble to pass it on to George Bush. After all, ISIS wouldn't even exist if he hadn't meddled in the Middle East, would it?
To be fair, I had my misgivings when he decided to invade Iraq. I had no problem with the legal issues involved. Sadaam had violated the cease fire. The whole question of WMDs, at least for me, was an unnecessary canard. However, surprise of surprises, there were signs of progress. The first free elections in Iraq were stunning to behold if you actually bothered to look. Despite threats, the people participated in numbers that shamed America's routinely tepid turnout. Iraqis displayed their badges of having voted with great pride. No, the job wasn't complete. The nascent movement towards self government had a long way to go, but it was a beginning.
Sadly, as so often is the case, America lacked the will to see the job done. No, I'm not going to blame President Obama. He is a pale reflection of America's popular opinion. We were tired of Iraq and very tired of bearing the expense and sacrifice. Much like we abandoned Russia to the Bolsheviks following WWI and Vietnam to the communists following the victory there, we abandoned the Iraqis long before they were capable of governing themselves, and ISIS arose.
So, how will we react if and when the world points the finger at us?
The simple answer is the perpetrators whomever they may be. However, few will be satisfied with the simple answer, will they?
The popular approach of applying critical theory will demand that we look to the motivations of the perpetrators much as other crimes are mitigated by assigning blame to a turbulent childhood or social injustice.
I suspect that blame will eventually land on the shores of the United States where the ideologues will scramble to pass it on to George Bush. After all, ISIS wouldn't even exist if he hadn't meddled in the Middle East, would it?
To be fair, I had my misgivings when he decided to invade Iraq. I had no problem with the legal issues involved. Sadaam had violated the cease fire. The whole question of WMDs, at least for me, was an unnecessary canard. However, surprise of surprises, there were signs of progress. The first free elections in Iraq were stunning to behold if you actually bothered to look. Despite threats, the people participated in numbers that shamed America's routinely tepid turnout. Iraqis displayed their badges of having voted with great pride. No, the job wasn't complete. The nascent movement towards self government had a long way to go, but it was a beginning.
Sadly, as so often is the case, America lacked the will to see the job done. No, I'm not going to blame President Obama. He is a pale reflection of America's popular opinion. We were tired of Iraq and very tired of bearing the expense and sacrifice. Much like we abandoned Russia to the Bolsheviks following WWI and Vietnam to the communists following the victory there, we abandoned the Iraqis long before they were capable of governing themselves, and ISIS arose.
So, how will we react if and when the world points the finger at us?
Terrorism
Paris
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 11
3
3
0
CPT Jack Durish, I don't agree that it is accurate to blame Bush for ISIS under any stretch of the imagination. The precursor of ISIS, AQI, had been thoroughly defeated during the Anbar Awakening. Their bloodthirsty ways had been experienced by the Sunnis, who then joined with us to exterminate them in detail.
It was Obama's retreat from Iraq before Iraq was ready to govern and defend itself independently that allowed the remnants of AQI to re-form itself into ISIS.
Obama's failure to back the Syrian rebels early on and to arm the Kurds allowed ISIS to expand in Syria and to make attacks back into Iraq. And Obama's failure to take out ISIS when they were in massed columns in the desert during their assault into Iraq, and again when they drove captured American weapons and vehicles back into their home bases in Syria.
And it is not accurate IMHO to blame American war weariness for Obama's failure to act in a timely manner; that is what leadership is for - to explain the situation and to lead the people to support clearly laid out policies. The American people would have followed a strong leader just as they backed Bush after 9/11.
Unfortunately, Obama lacks strategic vision and appears to be terminally indecisive. That is the reason for the rise of ISIS, IMHO.
It was Obama's retreat from Iraq before Iraq was ready to govern and defend itself independently that allowed the remnants of AQI to re-form itself into ISIS.
Obama's failure to back the Syrian rebels early on and to arm the Kurds allowed ISIS to expand in Syria and to make attacks back into Iraq. And Obama's failure to take out ISIS when they were in massed columns in the desert during their assault into Iraq, and again when they drove captured American weapons and vehicles back into their home bases in Syria.
And it is not accurate IMHO to blame American war weariness for Obama's failure to act in a timely manner; that is what leadership is for - to explain the situation and to lead the people to support clearly laid out policies. The American people would have followed a strong leader just as they backed Bush after 9/11.
Unfortunately, Obama lacks strategic vision and appears to be terminally indecisive. That is the reason for the rise of ISIS, IMHO.
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Seid Waddell - Captain; Yes I did read the link. Words without action are only words. Mr. Bush (with the support of approximately 6% of "Republicans") is now an outlier as far as the next occupant of the Oval Office is concerned. If the GOP is really serious, let's see the text of the resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the US and ISIS (or even one that specifically authorizes the President of the United States of America to commit WHATEVER military forces are deemed needed to the fight [and commits "Congress" to paying the full costs of the fight {whatever those costs are}]).
The Republican "have control" of the House of Representatives so they should be able to pass resolutions to that effect even if all the Democrats vote against them in the House of Representatives. So if the Republicans pass the resolution in the House and ALL of them vote for it in the Senate (even if it fails there), that will establish their bona fides and I will actually believe that they are seriously intending to do something more than bring down Mr. Obama.
The Republican "have control" of the House of Representatives so they should be able to pass resolutions to that effect even if all the Democrats vote against them in the House of Representatives. So if the Republicans pass the resolution in the House and ALL of them vote for it in the Senate (even if it fails there), that will establish their bona fides and I will actually believe that they are seriously intending to do something more than bring down Mr. Obama.
(0)
(0)
SSG Michael Scott
Obama took the troops out of Iraq, and he, obama opened the door for ISIS. Period.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SSG Michael Scott, exactly. AQI had been soundly defeated during the Anbar Awakening, and Obama pulled out our troops prematurely and allowed the remnants of AQI to re-form into ISIS. He subsequently sat on his hands and watched as they grew in power and spread throughout the region.
Obama's reluctance to use military force in Iraq to maintain our successes there has created conditions in which much greater military force will be needed throughout the ME and Africa. He is this century's Neville Chamberlain.
Obama's reluctance to use military force in Iraq to maintain our successes there has created conditions in which much greater military force will be needed throughout the ME and Africa. He is this century's Neville Chamberlain.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
ISIS for one... I wonder how many Syrians were involved? I know the French have confirmed one Syrian passport.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
But won't the world begin to ask themselves would there even be an ISIS if we hadn't meddled in the Middle East?
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSgt Alex Robinson - Staff; Confirming a passport doesn't mean as much as it used to mean - not with the international market in passports.
BTW "Syrian passports" are selling at a premium right now because they get you OUT of Syria.
BTW "Syrian passports" are selling at a premium right now because they get you OUT of Syria.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CPT Jack Durish
I'm pretty sure our administration will, just as you predict, blame Bush. I also suspect that our President will once again resolve to stand by the Muslim Brotherhood while making only token gestures to take the fight to the terrorists (if he will even use the word terrorist).
I'm pretty sure our administration will, just as you predict, blame Bush. I also suspect that our President will once again resolve to stand by the Muslim Brotherhood while making only token gestures to take the fight to the terrorists (if he will even use the word terrorist).
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google