Rick Perry: Too Liberal for Texas »« Chapman on the Mythical Threat of Sharia in America

Bolton: Let’s Go to War With Everyone, Immediately

The absolutely deranged John Bolton just loves to put the lives of other people — and massive amounts of taxpayer money — on the line to fight the wars he likes. And there seems to be no limit to the wars he wants to fight. In a recent op-ed in the National Review, he argues that we should have taken out Syria’s Assad during the Iraq war — and never mind that it would lead to wars with lots of other countries.

Accordingly, regime change in Syria is prima facie in America’s interest as well as the interests of Israel and our Arab friends in the region, who see nothing but danger for themselves if Iran’s hegemonic ambitions unfold successfully. Why Republicans and Democrats alike have coddled Syria’s tyrants over the years is extraordinarily difficult to understand. Of course, as with overthrowing Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi, there is the question of what will replace a concededly distasteful regime. And today, that uncertainty is a major factor constraining our options for dealing with Syria’s conflict.

It would have been one thing to work with the Syrian diaspora to remove Assad and the Baath party when we had a massive military presence in Iraq, right on Syria’s border. In the days just after Saddam’s ouster in 2003, conditions were optimal (if nonetheless imperfect) for overthrowing Assad and replacing his regime with something compatible with American interests. We would not have needed to use U.S. ground forces. Our mere presence in Iraq could have precluded Iran — or, what we see today, an Iraq under Iran’s influence — from trying to protect Assad…

Significantly, U.S. intervention could not be confined to Syria and would inevitably entail confronting Iran and possibly Russia. This the Obama administration is unwilling to do, although it should.

In the case of Russia, such a confrontation would likely break the famous “reset” button beyond repair. As a president waiting for reelection so he can be more “flexible” toward Moscow, Obama is simply incapable of contemplating this step.

I certainly hope so. Bolton is just itching for a war with Iran AND Russia, for crying out loud. And remember, this is the guy who is advising Romney on foreign policy — the same Romney who is so hopelessly stuck in the 70s and 80s that he still thinks Russia is our biggest adversary in the world. Romney has said of Bolton, “John’s wisdom, clarity and courage are qualities that should typify our foreign policy.” That should scare the hell out of you.

Comments

  1. says

    Bolton is a relatively rare name, and the only time I ever see it in the press it’s either sodding Michael Bolton or effing John Bolton.
    Who do I complain to?

    – Richard Howland-Bolton

  2. says

    We would not have needed to use U.S. ground forces.

    The minute you see that sentence, in the context of advocating actual US military intervention, you know the author is a moron and can’t be taken seriously. If there’s one thing we learn from the life of Jesus, it is that even God needs a ground presence to get the job done.

    Chickenhawks mired in this sort of wishful thinking should be forcibly kept out of the DC area.

  3. imrryr says

    @timgueguen – liberal, anti-war appeasers who will stop at nothing to make sure we can’t do what’s necessary to win, just like in Vietnam?

  4. D. C. Sessions says

    That should scare the hell out of you.

    Which is exactly what they want: a terrified populace. Makes for a strong base of high-RWA followers.

  5. says

    Amusingly, if Ambassador Bolton is concerned about expanding Iranian influence, he should be apologizing for Iraq. That alone helped Iran expand its regional influence immensely, since they could take advantage of the fractured political situation in Iraq, and particually the Shia regions, to divide and conquer, providing support to the Shia political actors most Iikely to support their agenda.

    There was a REASON groups like the Jaysh al Mahdi were such a force in Iraq, and there’s a reason why the Sadrist block is nowminvolvedmin the government. That’s also the reason one of the biggest threats weapons-wise my unit faced in Iraq were of Iranian origin. And it’s because we opened the door for them the instant we invaded. In doing so, we created the regional stand-off we’re seeing now (though the base conditions were set long before we arrived).

  6. d cwilson says

    There’s a reason why Bolton’s nickname is Yosemite Sam. He is a living cartoon character. He would have fit right in with on the staff of General Buck Turgidson , saving up his precious bodily fluids.

  7. Artor says

    I find it terrifying that this fucktard was appointed as our ambassador to the UN. Please, someone tell me he’s been replaced.

  8. daved says

    I find it terrifying that this fucktard was appointed as our ambassador to the UN. Please, someone tell me he’s been replaced.

    Oh, hell, yes. Remember, he was appointed by GWB, and a change of administrations always means new ambassadors.

    Meanwhile, Bolton is reminding me of a final-season Monty Python sketch where an American general played by Michael Palin orders “Surround everyone with everything we’ve got.”

  9. d cwilson says

    To put in perspecitve just how much of a psychopath Bolton is, remember that Bush had to use a recess appointment to make him ambassador to the UN, and then, when the next Congressional session began, he had to leave because not even a republican controlled Senate would confirm him.

  10. equisetum says

    If Bolton had gotten his way I wonder who he would have blamed when it all blew up in America’s face.

    Liberals and communists, because they kept him from going far enough (i.e., wouldn’t let him blow up the top ten floors of the U.N.)

  11. laurentweppe says

    Of course, as with overthrowing Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi, there is the question of what will replace a concededly distasteful regime. And today, that uncertainty is a major factor constraining our options for dealing with Syria’s conflict.
    [...]
    Significantly, U.S. intervention could not be confined to Syria and would inevitably entail confronting Iran and possibly Russia. This the Obama administration is unwilling to do

    So his problem is not even stupidity: he knows why western powers are not enthusiastic about going to war with Assad, and… he just doesn’t give a shit.

  12. says

    While Russia is not the power it was back in the Soviet days they still have a pretty good sized nuclear arsenal. What part of mutually assured destruction does Bolton not get?

Leave a Reply