Also, we shouldn’t forget that most of the 9/11 hijackers were SAUDIS ffs.

The Taliban did not destroy the Twin Towers (AQ did) & GWB’s decisions DO matter because they limited the room for maneuver of subsequent administrations. The first point, for example, shows that ISIS (then in the form of AQI) thrived pre-surge, when there was a massive US troop presence in Iraq. So you believe that the US should maintain surge-levels of troops in Iraq (100,000+), permanently, despite the opposition of the Iraqi people, all while carpet bombing Iran and any other government that decides to oppose the United States, a country that, going by what you prescribe, has become a force for tyranny and arbitrary violence in the world.

Great plan brother. Seriously, your mindset is typical of hegemonic decline. The overstretch you call for will doom US power in the world. (and one thing we do agree on is that a hegemonic China isn’t going to be sunshine and lollipops. The thing that pisses me off the most about US foreign policy is that it is so glaringly hypocritical and hollow that it isn’t taken seriously as a ‘moral’ alternative to a Chinese view of international society – which, to their credit, at least doesn’t jerk anyone around by claiming to save this or that people.

I’m not at all cloaking my dislike of Obama, I’m pretty open about it, as much as you are your dislike for Bush.
I’ll grant this much, politically Obama had a golden opportunity to pin the withdrawal on Bush via the Agreement, and he took it. It was a smart move politically, but it would have been far better for the Iraqi people if he had done the courageous thing and found a way to stay on there. If he had applied as much effort to that as he has to making the world safe for illegal immigrants, or setting up a bad healthcare law, he would have succeeded.
In fact I have said for years that we probably ought to just step back from the ME and let them have total war, and try to make friends with whoever is left. I still believe that, but make an exception for Iraw because we had already established a pretty decent beachhead there. And, we are charged with being the world’s policeman because other wealthy nations, particularly the Europeans, won’t do it.
The “let the chips fall where they may” approach presents its own problems and risks (since that’s largely how we got into WW2). At any rate, if Obama and the Democrats remain in the WH, both you and I will probably get our wish on that seeing how that approach works out. My guess would be that it will work out well in the short run, but very badly in the short run, since it may be the baddest of the bad who end up in power there. The ME has a long history of this thanks to its detestable religion.

You and “lucifer” both seem to be making the same error, of thinking something like “as long as I can establish that GWB made bad decisions, Obama is not responsible for the bad decisions he has made about the ME.” Because of this flawed way of thinking, you miss the point that if we hadn’t withdrawn from Iraq, ISIS would never have developed into a force to be reckoned with in the first place. Your points #1 and #2 both progress from this irrelevant point of view.
Why is the idea of carpet-bombing Iran every 5 years until they give up their nuclear ambitions (or, their Ayatollah, since the people probably don’t actually want nukes), a problem, exactly? Carpet-bombing is cheap, and compared to making a bad deal with a totally untrustworthy Iran, even cheaper. I’m not a fan of Saudi Arabia, and I don’t want to see them get nukes either, and if we were still in Iraq, they wouldn’t be seeking to, most likely. Still, the Saudis are 1000 times more trustworthy and rational than the Iranians.
Your point #4 shows that you think a proper response to the Afghani Taliban destroying the Twin Towers would have been to do nothing, apparently. I’m sure Obama would agree with you on this point.
And then you close once again with the “Bush was an idiot” implication, as though that had any bearing on the idiot decision Obama made to flee Iraq. No wonder Canadians have to rely on the US for military protection.

If believing we should abide by the terms of the agreements we make as a nation and respecting the sovereignty of other countries is PC, then I’ll have to plead guilty as charged. To me these are just common sense and basic ethical behavior. As for your problem with the 21st century, any objective reading of American history would show that the US was far more scrupulous about honoring its commitments in past centuries than it is today. The Geneva Convention comes to mind.

I believe you are simply cloaking your dislike of Obama in increasingly nonsensical arguments over matters of international law. The fact is, you don’t have the slightest idea what Obama’s vision or motivations are, or what advice he may be getting on foreign policy from his military, security and intelligence advisers. It seems there is a certain element that invariably attempts to smear any thoughtful and deliberate decision-maker who takes into consideration both the pros and cons of an action and regards use of force as a last resort as being weak. On the other hand, we’ve seen where Dumya’s shoot-from-the-hip decision making got us.

I gather it’s never occurred to you that having a handful of religious mini-states in the Middle East fighting endlessly among themselves might actually be in our national security interests, despite the devastating impact on the local citizenry. Or that having Hezbollah and Iran’s Shiite militias engaged in fighting ISIS might be preferable to having them engaged in fighting the US and its allies.

As these subtleties appear lost on you, I suggest you occupy your time by singing another chorus of “Onward Christian Soldiers” and praying that the next president chooses to waste another trillion dollars and thousands more American lives in Iraq, or better yet flies a few nukes in their direction. After all, we have to destroy the village in order to save it.

1) ISIS was born in US-occupied Iraq and nurtured in the Syrian civil war, doubt it would disappear if there were 80,000 troops in Iraq, sucking more money from the US treasury every single moment without any hope of commiserate US economic growth in the future (un-sexily enough, the road to perpetual sandbox domination runs through domestic infrastructure investment, human and otherwise, at this point).
2) The second the US decided to remove a Sunni archenemy of Iran in Saddam Hussein it made the ascent of Iran in predominantly Shiite Iraq inevitable.
3) The pre-deal dynamic would be Iran getting carpet-bombed every 5 years to roll back its capacity, and even so would provide no guarantees. Also, why does Saudi Arabia – a country that was fundamental in Pakistan’s illicit rise as a nuclear power (which we should probably all be far more worried about) – get a free pass? Funding for any number of terrorist Sunni outfits links back to the Kingdom, including ISIS in the early days. To singularly rely on Saudi Arabia as an ‘ally’ is strategic folly; they’re both antithetical to US interests, so mend fences with Iran so far that you can play them off against each other.
4) Iran’s threat to Israel is less credible today than it was when Obama took power because Tehran has more of a reason to abide by international norms. Its making huge geopolitical gains thanks to Bush’s foreign policy (bye bye Saddam, Taliban).

It is amusing though to see people whinge about the realpolitik impacts of a foreign policy that was (falsely/improperly) designed around ‘human rights.’ This was all apparent back in the early 2000s when these decisions were being made. There are no surprises here.

“Yet paradoxically the more a hegemonic power uses said military might, the smaller their ‘sandbox’ becomes.”

How would we know? When we used our hegemonic power, we were pretty damn powerful. When we started being afraid to use it, we have been disrespected in the world. That’s the real paradox.

“Even if Obama stayed the course like some post-history Western tyrant (an impossible option anyways), what benefit would be derived then?”
No ISIS rule, no mass beheadings, no domination of the region by Iran, no temptation for Saudi Arabia to pursue nuclear arms due to not being able to depend on the USA against Iran, no credible Iranian threat to Israel… etc.
Other than those? Nothing.

There you go again with the 21st century PC nonsense about how we can’t violate Iraq’s sovereignty without their permission, even if it’s for their own good (versus “colonialism”, which was done by the British to suck the wealth out of a conquered country). If Obama had asked to remain in Iraq, Congress would have granted him the authority; whether Iraq wanted it or not.

You likely won’t understand what the reality of geopolitics is, until (1) Obama’s vision for diminished American power is achieved, and (2) China is therefore pre-eminent in the world militarily, and shows you that the world really IS their sandbox, and they don’t care about violating your sovereignty nor do they have any problem with enslaving you.

China has no such illusions as you do.Glad I won’t be around to see this unfold – but something tells me you are quite young and therefore, will be.

Yet paradoxically the more a hegemonic power uses said military might, the smaller their ‘sandbox’ becomes. What benefits have the blood and treasure bought in Iraq or Afghanistan? Even if Obama stayed the course like some post-history Western tyrant (an impossible option anyways), what benefit would be derived then? Would it somehow reverse the relative decline in US power vis-a-vis China and other would-be ‘sandbox’ contenders?

The answer is no, and you champion a foreign policy that would happily march the United States into the history books as another overextended and foolhardy empire that collapsed in on itself.

Of course Obama was bound by what Bush and Cheney agreed to. Otherwise any treaty or agreement the US has signed or would ever sign in the future wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on and would undermine any remaining credibility the US has left in the world. Abiding by an agreement your govt made is not “kowtowing” to anyone, it is what is expected of any civilized country.

You seem to ignore the fact that Iraq is a sovereign country with its own rights, politics and prerogatives. If you can’t understand what it means to have that sovereignty violated and why the US does not have the right to do that, then there is nothing I can say that would enlighten you. I am simply at a loss to understand how anyone can seriously take such a position.

I am grateful however that the current administration does not suffer from the illusion that might always makes right and that the US is under no obligation to honor other countries’ sovereignty or abide by the agreements we make. To assert otherwise is simply absurd.