Obama's "Do Nothing Stupid" Foreign Policy Fails Again As 'New' Iraqi Government Formation Crumbles

Tyler Durden's picture

President Obama's cunning plan to 'quasi-ouster' Shiite PM Maliki, in the vague hopes that a more egalitarian all-inclusive Iraqi government could be formed that will magically lead the 'people' of the Sykes-Picot-defined nation to coalesce in sovereignty against The Islamic State has, somewhat understating it and perhaps unsurprisingly, hit a roadblock. As Bloomberg reports, Obama's effort to have Arabs take the lead in combating Islamic State suffered a setback when Sunni lawmakers quit talks on forming a new Iraqi government after Shiite gunmen killed scores of worshipers at a Sunni mosque. The killings in Diyala province derailed attempts to form an Iraqi government with bigger roles for Sunni Arabs and Kurds that would strengthen the fight against the terrorist group. It appears the common knowledge of who is friend and who is foe remains very much in the air.


Iraq’s survival, including its ability to beat ISIL, depends on Iraqis rising above their differences, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden wrote yesterday in an op-ed in the Washington Post. He and Obama are encouraged by signs of Iraqi leaders recognizing the need to end the deadlock, he said.

Doing so would require acknowledging that, in opposing Islamic State, the U.S. and Sunni Arabs have a common interest with traditional foes such as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Hezbollah, which the U.S., the European Union and Israel consider a terrorist organization.

But, as Bloomberg reports,

U.S. President Barack Obama’s effort to have Arabs take the lead in combating Islamic State suffered a setback when Sunni lawmakers quit talks on forming a new Iraqi government after Shiite gunmen killed scores of worshipers at a Sunni mosque.


The killings in Diyala province derailed at least temporarily attempts to form an Iraqi government with bigger roles for Sunni Arabs and Kurds that would strengthen the fight against the terrorist group. Ben Rhodes, the deputy White House national security adviser, said yesterday that the U.S. will consider airstrikes in Syria if needed to combat Islamic State.

However - this is a silver lining to The State Department...

This senseless attack underscores the urgent need for Iraqi leaders from across the political spectrum to take the necessary steps that will help unify the country against all violent extremist groups,” deputy U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a statement.

So, let's get this straight - due to the senseless Sunni-Shia attack, amid efforts to bring the two sides politically closer to take on The Islamic State together, the US State Department says the Sunni and Shia shoould move quicker towards partnership?

The breakdown in talks came as U.S. officials underscored what they called a growing threat posed by Islamic State, which also is known as ISIL, for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

The airstrikes are not quite going according to plan either...

Yesterday’s attacks brought the number of American airstrikes in Iraq to 93.


Expanded airstrikes, especially if they extend to populated areas, also would run an increased risk of causing civilian casualties and property damage.


That could drive some Iraqis and Syrians into the arms of Islamic State, these officials said. Like Hamas in Gaza, they said, IS would use civilians, including Christians, Yezidis, Turkmen and other minorities, as human shields.


Instead, three of the officials said, Obama has emphasized the need for Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister-designate Haidar al-Abadi to grant Sunnis and Kurds more power and positions in a new government.


Without that, these officials said, Sunni tribes in central Iraq that in 2006 joined U.S. forces in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq, a predecessor to IS, will remain on the sidelines or allied with the extremists.


The Kurds, who’ve done much of the fighting so far, will be reluctant to fight outside the northern areas they claim, especially if the Kurdistan Regional Government remains embroiled with the central government over the right to sell oil.

*  *  *
What a mess!?

*  *  *

We suspect, in some dark corner of Washington, Hillary is grinning from ear to ear.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ebworthen's picture

And I thought Christians were good at killing each other.

These Sunni/Shia Muslims make the Catholic/Protestant Christians look like pikers.

No wonder it took a brutal dictator to contain the insanity; bet a lot of Iraqi's miss Saddam.

y3maxx's picture



...Worst USSA President ever.

Skateboarder's picture

Carter knows how to build a house. Obie only knows how to drone one.

john39's picture

Obama is doing exactly what his owners want him to do-allow the psyops to grow and rage in order to suck the public into supporting another war for Israel.

666's picture

Murdering Saddam Hussein was the worst thing the USSA ever did for Iraq. Only a strong dictatorial hand like his was able to keep the religious fanatics under control. And yet, no politician will ever admit to this, and the MSM will forever say the USSA must keep bombing and torturing to try to establish peace.

Why am I no longer proud to be an American?

0b1knob's picture

< Do nothing stupid.

< Do nothing, stupid...


Best describes USSA policy.

MisterMousePotato's picture

@ebworthen ...

You write:

"And I thought Christians were good at killing each other.

These Sunni/Shia Muslims make the Catholic/Protestant Christians look like pikers."

One must assume yours is a reference to the conflict in (Northern) Ireland?

If so, you should go back and study again that part of history, which will benefit you by disabusing you of the notion that this is some sort of religious conflict. It is not. It is only by happenstance that the indiginous people (the Irish) are Catholic (sort of), and the people who invaded their country (the English) are Protestant (sort of).

To be sure, this is what we were all taught as children (look at those wacky 'Christians'), but it is not true. For example, if the Chinese invaded America, and the Americans objected, could one fairly portray that as a conflict between Buddists and Christians?

0b1knob's picture

I think he's probably referring to the conflict usually called the 30 Year War.   The war was initially an attempt to exterminate the Protestants in Germany which degernerated into a complete cluster f*ck.   Sort of like Iraq.

Escrava Isaura's picture


You wrote: "am I no longer proud to be an American"

How about Vietnam?

Were you proud?

GetZeeGold's picture



Are you referring to John F. Kennedy's war?


It took two more presidents and Nixon to shut that off. Then they got rid of Nixon....and they probably should have.


So what are we going to do about Obama at this juncture?

Escrava Isaura's picture


Your comment shows that you don’t know geography and that you don’t understand history.

Maybe we should talk about gold?

Mr. Magoo's picture

Please stop already with stupidity and incompetence, This is all orchestrated and planned by the globalists. Whether it will actually work is another story

oudinot's picture

Bush the second is the worst president ever, by a long shot...

BlindMonkey's picture

Lincoln by a wide mile.

Nobody is responsible for killing more Americans than him.

29.5 hours's picture



The judgement of history and the people of the U.S. is clear: responsibility for the Civil War lies with the slave owners and their pocket politicians.




BlindMonkey's picture

So sayth the winners of the war.

Slavery would have collapsed on its own given time. Lincoln wiped his ass with the constitution and killed with a bloodlust to keep the states together. He didn't give a squirt of piss about the blacks.

29.5 hours's picture



No. No form of slavery collapses on its own. Stay on bended knee and see how long the present form of slavery can last...




BlindMonkey's picture

The English abolished slavery and would have implemented slavery embargos on the Confederate states until they abolished it. The north could have done that too. Under those economic pressures the South would have done it. And without bloodshed too.

NidStyles's picture

Nothing in empirical case study suggests that what you are saying is even close to beig honest or accurate.

CrazyCooter's picture

So, your point is that regardless of economics or politics, slavery is supremely resliant and can only be changed by war (which killed 2% of the population IIRC - the bloodiest war fought by the US by a long shot)?

Seems like slavery would be all over just like cockroaches (unless there was previously a huge war to root it out), if your thesis were true. On that note, why doesn't it crop back up if so resilient?

Did I miss something?

My history on the subject is a bit rusty, so perhaps fight club can help me out here, but didn't this start because the "north" insisted the "south" sell them their ag products rather than selling at a higher price to other foriegn bidders?

I also recall bankers being lined up to loan Lincoln money, which might have brought down the American experiment much sooner, but Lincoln just printed paper and bypassed the whole "lending at interest" thing. Just pointing out that our government could do the same thing rather than borrowing at interest.



Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

you are correct. The tax and tarriffs system of the day was set up to funnel wealth from the south to the north. The southern states reognized the economic system was unfairly set up to favor the northern states, who largely ran the federal govt, and decided that since the US was formed as 'a voluntary union of seperate states' they would seceed from the union. Lincoln had one of his minions goad some southerners into firing the first shot, and even congradualted the person who caused it, since he needed them to fire the first shots. The civil war was NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY. and lincoln stated many times he had no care for southern slaves, and did not think black people should ever be equal to whites, act as jurors in a trial, or intermarry with whites. He also tried to deport them all back to africa. And yes, slavery was ended without bloodshed everywhere else. I see no reason why that couldnt have been the case here

Escrava Isaura's picture

tried to deport them all back to africa.

And Haiti!

Bossman1967's picture

genes Libya whisk stands for land of the free slaves and is said to the shores of tripoli rite?

Escrava Isaura's picture


By the way, did you give up fishing? Or, were you kidding us?


Another reason for the civil war [to exploit the South] was that the ‘North’ economy was stagnating [railroad and land speculation collapsed, living the north bankrupted and its savings gone] while the ‘South’ was prospering.

Slave's picture

The Confederates already had a plan to abolish slavery.

They already had a currency too.

They had their shit together quite well.

The choice should have been easy: 600,000 dead VS just letting the South fucking go.

Lincoln made the wrong choice.

dumbStruck's picture

Most blacks were worse off for a long time  after the civil war than before it. They had their freedom, at least on the surface but they had no property or employment of any sort, if they wanted things like food and shelter, they had to basically go begging to their previous owners. I agree that Lincoln didn't seem to do much for the newly freed slaves after freeing them. They were basically free to starve afterwards.

Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

Thats becuase history is written by the winners. Read Ralph Raico or Tom Woods if you want to know the real history behind it. That war was over states rights, on whether or not this was a 'voluntary union of states'. Lincoln stated many times he had no care for black people or slaves. People who say otherwise are either lying or are stupid, which one are you? If it was about slavery, why did the emancipation proclamation only free slaves in the south where lincoln had no control over them, but did not free the slaves in slave owning states that didn't seceed, where he actually could control them. This was about economics, money nothing else. The southern states decided it was in their best interests to seperate from the north, and Lincoln nearly wiped out a generation of Americans to do so. Posse Comitatus was written to protect future generations from another lincoln after the disgracful way the union armies conducted themselves during 'reconstruction'. If his cause was so great, why did he have to suspend habeas corpus, jail dissenters, shut down opposition newspapers in the north, and use federal troops to intimidate voters at polling place? Lincoln was not only a terrible president, he paved he way for the abuse of power we have seen by pretty much every president since.

Keegan11's picture

Worst first:
Bush 2
LBJ (lest we forget)
Woodrow (commie prick to boot - matter of fact, thx WW for your map drawing skills post Ottoman Empire, and the 100 years of shit since)

Cheers all,

MalteseFalcon's picture

My list:


LBJ (yeah, that's right)
Bush 2
Bush 1

No war during Carter's term, so Carter skates.

Kudos on including LBJ.  He's the worst.  Huge welfare state expansion, Viet Nam war (yeah, it's his war), abetting another nasty war, kicking off inflation, affirmative action, shitty supreme court nominees and the crime of the 20th century.  An impressive list unmatched by anyone. 

These men are why the US went from WWII victors to its current sad state.

kchrisc's picture

"...Worst USSA President ever."

That would be Lincoln the Dictator and Republic Destroyer. Runner-up is the auctioneer of the DC US and American people, Wilson. All others are just shades of these scumbags.

An American, not US subject.


"So I came upon a river swollen with flood. Being that I could not swim, I pondered on how to make my way across. Along came a pol who offered to let me cross free on his back. Being wise in the matters of pols, I was not sure if I should take the offer, and risk being drowned and eaten by him. After careful thought, I happened on a solution--I killed the pol and used his body as a float to aid my crossing. Who says pols are not worth something?!"

BlindMonkey's picture

In the future I recommend using your seat cushion. It doesn't smell as bad after the second day.

MalteseFalcon's picture

Strong cases can be made for Lincoln and Wilson as bad presidents. 

Escrava Isaura's picture


Your US President History is pretty lame. Embarrassing!



NidStyles's picture

Please, Chomsky is an apologist for the state that pretends to be a libertarian of sorts while working for his government pension.

Lea's picture

Thanks, Escrava Isaura. Chomsky is always a welcome voice.

MalteseFalcon's picture

Chomsky = gate keeper and limited hang out meister.

CrazyCooter's picture

I very rarely click on "surprise" youtube links on ZH anymore. I just get tired of the crazy at the other end.

It would be more productive if you actually bothered to "write" an idea or share a structured opinion, instead of the cut-and-paste monkey coupled with absolute assertions.

Care to bother writing why? Too much work?



Escrava Isaura's picture

Sure Cooter, my pleasure.

Not that I should remind you, but, obviously that I have, too:

I could list a list of crimes committed by religion, US presidents, our capitalist system, and so on. I could even go as far back as our “Founding Lawyers” crimes.

While at it, I could even try to figure out for you why psychopaths do what they do. And why hypocrites try to find psychological support in nonsense writing and data.  

But, that would make this post too long and nobody would read…. Or easily forgettable!

So, I am going to leave you with this quote:

“Freud was one of the last representatives of Enlightenment philosophy. He genuinely believed in reason as the one strength man has and which alone could save him from confusion and decay.” Erich Fromm, in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1977)


Slave's picture

>>our capitalist system

I stopped reading there. Capitalism has been around since the beginning of man. The free exchange of goods (which we do not have in this country) is not the root of our problem. Not even close.

Escrava Isaura's picture


So, let me try this post, instead. And see if this one is CLOSER:

Capitalism: An economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism is capital accumulation.


surf0766's picture

Wilson Wilson




Kirk2NCC1701's picture

<-- Bush 1 & 2

<-- Obama

BFF of Zionists -- ever!  As in.. "Running interference, providing free stuff for their FSA"

Oldwood's picture

While many of us recognize what a disaster Obama is, sadly there are many who would welcome his removal at similar costs here. There has got to be a better way. Ultimately I think it is just up to the people to say no and suffer the costs which will be high. Otherwise we get what we deserve.

Caviar Emptor's picture

All we need are some Butch tax cuts, a few weapons of mass destruction in the desert to go after, a little water boarding a little subprime housing boom and we'll have a booming economy!

Escrava Isaura's picture


Wisdom with a sense of humor in one paragraph! Only you, Caviar.

Caviar Emptor's picture

Yes humor is the only thing standing between reality and despair

CrazyCooter's picture

I have often remarked that sarcasm (or cynicism depending) is the last line of mental defense.

The shit in the news these days is so surreal, I feel numb anymore. Fuck it, I am going fishing!



drstrangelove73's picture

For years,when anyone posted anything in the least derogatory about our parvenu presidente,legions of pro-Obama trolls leapt out to cry 'racism'and other irrelevancies,including that hoary chesnut'Bush's fault'
Well,it's been 6 years and now it's plain for all to see that this unqualified Trojan horse is the worst mistake the leftist electorate in this country ever made,compounded by re-electing the SOB when it was apparent to any sentient being that he was destroying the country and jeopardizing the world .
So how about it,Obama trolls-and you know who you are-lets hear a little apologizing