Obama Wins One: Maliki Steps Down

I assume this is good -- everyone says that al-Maliki was bad for Iraq (and bad for US interests), and I've never heard anyone on the right speak up for him.

Obama had long said he would not commit resources to aid the Iraq government until al-Maliki stepped down -- and I sincerely hope that with this obstacle now cleared, we can kill some IS fighters.

Eli Like predicted this last night on the podcast, citing just this event, noted by Allah:

It was Sistani’s letter a few days ago demanding a new prime minister that sunk him, apparently. Without a Shiite base of support, he had nothing.

Obama is now claiming that the siege of Sinjar is broken, however, and now the "majority" of the combat -- I mean, non-combat-- personnel assigned to this mission can depart the country.

The UN disagrees:

Good God.

I think he really does support Tom Friedman's idea of "no victor, no vanquished" in warfare.

Tom Friedman suggested that he does agree, in a column about an interview he had with Obama. He didn't claim he'd asked the president if he agreed (and I wonder why he didn't...? Perhaps he was worried that the president would openly agree...?), but suggested that what Obama said to him was consistent with Friedman's own "no victor, no vanquished" theory of war.

So, the Islamic State cannot be humiliated with a "vanquishing" defeat?

What?

Talk about an "uncertain trumpet."

posted by Ace at 06:37 PM

| Access Comments