While traveling most of the day yesterday I heard all about Obama’s Iraq speech but couldn’t find the time to blog on it. The WaPo did such an excellent job of dissecting this speech not much reason to put together a long post on it….they hit the nail on the head:
BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
Mr. Obama’s charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama’s timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama’s strategy allows no such linkage — his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.
At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued — wrongly, as it turned out — that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a “spike” in violence. Now, he describes as “an achievable goal” that “we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future — a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge.” How will that “true success” be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.
~~~“What’s missing in our debate,” Mr. Obama said yesterday, “is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq.” Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome — that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and a historical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.
Willful ignorance. No other way to describe his position on Iraq. How else do you explain the fact that he puts out his latest position on Iraq prior to visiting Iraq to see the conditions himself? There is no reason to see the progress, he knows and understands the only way to victory is to retreat. It’s bred into the liberal psyche I suppose. And now we see why the man won’t meet with the military leaders in Iraq. Can you imagine the reception he would get if he argued we could finally win this war by retreating? At the same time we ARE winning this war….
But this speech and his non-flip-flopping stance on Iraq should not come as any surprise. He received quite a bit of backlash from the far left over his flip-flopping on FISA so he had to stick to his guns here or face a mutiny.
See author page
I read Obama’s entire speech and I think he was on point. We do need to end this war in Iraq and we the Iraqi government more confident in their desire to take more control of security, we now have an opportunity to bring this war to an end. Certainly we will have some presence in Iraq for some time to come, be we cannot continue to keep over 100,000 troops in Iraq. As Obama said, we do not have unlimited resources to leave Iraq in perfect condition. In the meantime, we have the Taliban increasing its strength and our generals have stated that the Iraq war makes it impossible to add more troop levels.
Two weeks ago McCain stated that any troop increases for Afghanistan should come from NATO. He is now calling for 3 brigades for Afghanistan – hours after Obama called for an additional 2 brigades. McCain himself has said that the war would be over in 2013…
From Obama’s Speech:
Just today, the Taliban has reported that they have taken over the area where 9 American soldiers were killed. Obama stated “If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.” This is so true, yet we continue to believe that Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. It is not. It is a war of choice and we have paid a considerable price.
Curt,
Without defending Barack Obama’s policy, the frustration with his consistency expressed in this editorial mirrors the frustration of many, including myself, who hear a similar unreasonable consistency from the Administration.
When things were going badly we were told we cannot leave now, Iraq will implode.
Now that things are going well, we are told we cannot leave now, success is within reach.
The consistent answer is we cannot leave now, but now is always a year later.
The simple fact is that our military success must be matched by Iraqi political success.
That is not happening. Just the other day the Kurdistan contingent walked out of parliamentary discussions on provincial elections.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-elect16-2008jul16,0,2519229.story
“U.S. and Iraqi officials hope the polls scheduled for Oct. 1 can help ease tensions among Iraq’s main ethnic and religious factions by giving groups that boycotted the last election, in 2005, a stake in power. But preparations have been held up because there is no law setting out procedures to be followed.”
If as the President has said our exit strategy is to leave when Iraq is peaceful and stable and able to defend its own borders, I believe we will be there the next year, and the next, and the next.
James rightly points out that with finite military resources which are currently overtaxed, the Iraq effort comes at the cost of Afqhanistan’s security, which ultimately means our.
Thanks James for attempting to make sense of flawed talking points. However, I’m not buying it.
Osama bin Laden himself has declared numerous times that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. If you were OBL where would you rather be? In a cave in Afghanistan cut off from the world or in the heart of the Middle East with Iraq’s oil resources at your disposal.
If you want to admit that we have WON the war in Iraq and that the Al Queda threat there is not what it once was, then fine. But let’s not play that tired game of suggesting that somehow we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan because of Iraq. Certainly, we are a nation capable of doing both.
And what’s wrong with calling on our NATO allies to send more troops to Afghanistan? How many years have I listened to you libs complain that our allies are not doing enough?
So now, McCain suggests doing exactly what you folks have been shouting about for years and all you can do is poo-poo the idea? Hmmmm…. anyone else notice that it’s not just Obama who is inconsistent?
P.S. On the general topic: I am sad to say that the quote “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down. “ will likely be the only soundbit that most of these Obamatons will hear and no doubt cheer. How many of them ever read a newspaper except for the Sports or comics? How many do you think will read and consider the WAPO editorial?
Osama bin Laden would rather fight in Iraq than on his doorstep. You should never let the enemy choose the battlefield. Willful stupidity.
James and Dave,
I guess I would argue that since when is it the agreed opinion to bring our troops home without achieving their goal?
Look, there are some that want the military home all the time and no foreign exploits. Then there are some that want to intercede in this or that all over the place, just no war. Then there are the occasional war and neither group is happy. Bring ’em home now gets a plurality.
What I see here is, the military has won a hard fought military victory in Iraq and has enabled a new Iraqi government to stand on it’s wobbly feet and field a new army. Time lines should absolutely be based upon the mission and success of that state.
We’ve still got troops garrisoned in the majority of places we’ve fought wars. Iraq should be no different. If we weren’t there, the troops would have to be somewhere. Somewhere training. Training kills lots of troops. The press rarely adds all that up, but the military life is fraught with loss of life and accidents because everyone is constantly doing things, not sitting around.
Why can’t we all agree that we want to win? Would it be so bad if Iraq succeeds and precipitates massive change in the region? We’ve lost too many to demand time lines and home at all costs. Finish the job. Finish Afganistan. Make a commitment to succeed and reap the rewards and honor that it brings.
Funny, Fit fit, but I agree with you for once. You really shouldn’t let the enemy choose the battlefield. Osama bin Laden wanted the battlefield to be in the US. George Bush took the war to the heart of the Middle East. This forced al Queda to engage there because OBL knew he couldn’t allow a free Iraq (we know this because he told us so himself). So, instead of a battlefield in the US where terrorists strike at American civilians, we had a battlefield in Iraq where the terrorists dashed themselves upon the rocks of our professional military. It has been hard, and mistakes have been made, but strategically it has been highly successful. Who among us would have anticipated in the weeks and months after 9/11 that we would not see another attack in the US for nearly 7 years?
Skeptic,
First world trade center bombing – 1993
9/11 -2001
That’s eight years. What did we do that kept OBL out of our homeland for that time period?
Further, you espouse the “fly paper” theory of Iraq. Or in your case it’s rock, not paper.
This strategy involves stationing a large force in one place and drawing the enemy out where they can be attrited. It has a disastrous military history – Little Big Horn, Dien Bien Phu, and Khe Sahn. In the first two, the large force was decisively defeated. At Khe Sahn, our troops were bled to little if any military advantage. We are the ones who are stuck in Iraq, not OBL.
Mike,
The military is overtaxed now, – constant reployments, stop-loss, not to mention equipment long overdue repair. It is simply not true that we can do Iraq and Afghanistan. We have not done Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurgent and OBL is rebuilding Al Queda. Last month for the second straight month troop deaths in Afghanistan exceeded those in Iraq. That is the reality.
From Obama speech, March 2008 at CFR
Zawahiri, July 2005 letter to Zarqawi
Gen Petraeus, Pentagon press briefing, 4/26/07
Osama Bin Laden, Dec 2004
Obama, July 15, 2008
Obama proudly touts his desire to “talk” to our enemies. Apparently he does demonstrate some consistency… he “talks”, but he doesn’t listen. Not to our Generals, and not to our enemy.
Afghanistan has been under the control of the UN/NATO forces entirely since June 2006, and mostly for a couple years before that. And of course, NATO members are reticent to send the needed troops. Naturally, it is the US that must bear the onus for the int’l community, yet again. And still everyone blames us for the NATO failures. ho hum… business as usual.
However if you have a beef about Afghanistan’s security deterioration, you may want to contact NATO and have a chat with them about their absurd rules of engagement. Everyone wants these wars to be conducted with int’l forces. Well… this is yet another in a long line of examples of their ineptitude.
Then of course, there’s Pakistan. After the demonization of Musharraf in the western press, what tacit help we got from him is now history. Pakistan will prove to be a major problem for our next POTUS… I’ve been saying this for months. They have adopted a NIMBY attitude for truces with jihad groups, and care not that they are proliferating and running amok across the borders. Obama’s plan to enter Pakistan for OBL upon “actionable intelligence”, with or without the Pakistani’s blessing, will prove to take an already “hostile” ally out of the column of allies entirely.
Long story short, Obama is too naive on foreign policy to be a CIC in this era of State’less global jihadists. He doesn’t listen, but sure does a lot of talking. And it’s ‘the height of chutzpah to schedule a big Iraq speech *before* he goes to Iraq. This indicates that… unless he’s willing to look the fool publicly… he’s headed there with no intent of “changing” his mind based on what he hears from the Iraqis and the commanders on the ground.
And I would argue that Iraq should not be one of those places. Indeed our troops should be somewhere else… Afghanistan for one. I see no problem with leaving some forces in Iraq or in the region for quick response should the Iraqi government need it. But in no way should we have 100,000 plus troops in Iraq past 2010.
People are saying that we should listen to the generals. Well, the generals are saying that the military is overstretched. They are saying that we can’t add brigades to Afghanistan because of Iraq. They are saying that the troops need better rotations. Even the Iraqi government is saying that there needs to be a timeline for American troops.
Osama bin Laden is hiding in a cave in Afghanistan where Taliban forces have the freedom to operate. They are funded by poppy crops and taxes on marble quarries. They are gaining in strength so why not tell the Americans that the front in in Iraq? Better to have the major forces there then in his back yard.
First, you have to truly define victory at what is the aggregate cost for that victory. Yes, I would like to see Iraq become a stable country but it may have to come with less cost to America and more effort on their part. “We’ve lost too many” is a classic disposition effect where we ride with a losing position too long for fear of admitting a mistake was made. In the past 7 years Bush has been dragged kicking and screaming to make adjustments.
“Osama Bin Laden is hiding in a cave in Afghanistan”
You mean Pakistan. Al Queda is in Pakistan so the US should send troops to Pakistan, right? That’s what Sen Obama said in the New Hampshire debate.
The idea that the central front for the fight against Al Queda should be INSIDE the US is crazy because the only way to do that would be to increase security many fold. For every increase in security, we lose more and more freedom. So advocating that the fight w Al Queda should be inside the US is to advocate giving up more freedoms.
Meanwhile, the idea that sending more troops to fight Al Queda in Afghanistan makes as much sense as sending more troops to Djibouti to fight Al Queda. Al Queda’s in Pakistan. If ya wanna fight em where they are….prepare to invade a nuclear armed nation that’s 3x the size of Iraq, has areas that have never been conquered in the entire history of mankind, has the worst terrain on the planet, and-oh yeah-has literally tens of millions of wannabe martyrs. Please present your Pakistani invasion plans forthwith.
Basketball coach gives team rousing speech about victory.
Right before game he replaces star players with bench warmers.
Team looses.
Why?
“I had a couple hundred riding on the other team” — coach
The Dems see it as in their own political interest for America to loose in Iraq, and in fact in just about every other sphere of endeavor. Their political interests come first, and so if you know how to read their actions (and not be confused by trying to figure out what their gibberish), you can interpret that what they really mean is “Me first, and the hell with America.”
James: Are you prepared to accept the consequences of your policy which amounts to an abandonment of Iraq to the terrorists and Saddamites?
Again, if you listen to the enemy lay out their plans in the wake of the US exit from Iraq….
Zawhiri, again from his July 2005 letter to Zarqawi
Zawahiri, three years later from his “Open Meeting” Q & A this past February
As the US leaves, the Iraqis must be assured they can stand up to the promised assault from jihad. For it is surely coming their way.
As for America and a premature withdrawal… again from Zawahiri’s 2005 letter to Zarqawi
They have every intention of dealing with the Awakening Council and any Muslims who aided the US.. and perhaps the Iraq govt. Their quest is to take Iraq, altho Zawahiri himself places more import upon Egypt. However Iraq’s natural resources are far more plentiful, and valuable when waging war.
They are also very aware of the media’s ability to convince the US population to cut and run. (pg 10 of PDF, 2005 letter to Zarqawi)
If any are naive enough to believe that the US exit will leave Iraq without jihadists swarming in our wake, you are mistaken. And one of their strongest weapons is our own media, actively bending the will of Americans. I believe what the enemy has promised – three years ago, and again four months ago.. Therefore leaving Iraq in the position of strength to battle this swarm is integral.
Meeting Obama’s withdrawal promises, with no respect to the condition of Iraq to engage jihad and win, is not.
As opposed to people like you that when things were going badly were saying we cannot win so we should leave now.
And when things are going well you say things are going good, so we should leave now.
The consistent answer is we must leave now.
Wait a minute. How is it that Gen Mullen and Sec. Gates are saying that they want to look at increasing troop levels in Afghanistan as they reduce forces in Iraq – the same thing that Obama is saying – but you guys disagree with it.
Dave Dave… remember AQ history. They were booted out of the Sudan in 1996, so AQ and OBL had to find a new home. So they packed up their truck and moved to Beverly…. Afghanistan, that is. Taliban, black burka country.
In 1998 he merged AQ, tied up with Zawahiri formally via the World Islamic Front Statement of 1998. None of these business dealings hindered the planning for 911, nor the implementation of bombing the USS Cole months before the election.
In short, OBL was not idle, but laying the groundwork. It was not for stellar Clinton admin security measures, as you may be subtly suggesting. Only those not astute to AQ history and their timelines of merging forces would buy into that bit.
James Manning… forgot to mention….you’re back! Kewl.
Evidently you misinterpret Scott’s sarcasm. This relates to the BHO argument that troops should be in Afghanistan and not Iraq, because the former is where AQ is.
Scott rightly points out the absurdity in that. AQ is harbored in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The neo-Taliban in Afghanistan are AQ friendly, as are the neo-Taliban in Pakistan.
I don’t believe any are against increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. However that is only necessary because the rest of the NATO participants refuse to honor their troop pledges. So we are having to pick up the slack to meet the NATO needs.
Personally, if we are going to be doing a “Surge” in Afghanistan, I want our boys taking off the blue helmets and being under *US commanders*, and our rules of engagement. I am not in support of providing NATO with our military to command on that level.
AGAIN:
James: Are you prepared to accept the consequences of your policy which amounts to an abandonment of Iraq to the terrorists and Saddamites?
America’s opinion:
LINK
Mata,
I’m not suggesting anything about the Clinton administrations successes against AQ. I agree with your AQ timeline. I am responding to Skeptic’s position that the reason that we have not been attacked in the homeland is Iraq. There is no reason to believe that.
You quote extensively from Zawahiri’s and Zarqawi intercepted communications to illustrate AQ’s real intentions. You don’t think AQ knows its communications are intercepted? Especially given that they are openly available on FA? Given that, do you really think they’re revealing their true plans? I’m sure you’ve heard of the intelligence technique of misinformation? Telling the enemy one thing, so you can do another.
With respect to Gen. Petraeus’ testimony: Of course from his point of view, it’s the central front in terms of troops committed and actual combat. But that’s because we are not fully taking the fight to AQ and their former and current allies, the Taliban, in Afqhanistan. We went into Afghanistan and defeated the Taliban and then turned our focus in another direction, just as we did in the 80’s after the Soviet Union was driven out. We should have finished the job there before we even thought about Iraq. Now we have two unstable countries in the Middle East. From a strategic standpoint it’s like what Hitler did when he opened up the Eastern Front. We left a token force and expected NATO to carry the ball after we had adopted a go-it-alone attitude in Iraq. Remember Rumsfeld’s typically arrogant comments disparaging the “Old Europe.” Remember “freedom fries.”
Pakistan was supporting jihadi groups in Kashmir as a buffer against India well before 9/11. Musharaf was never a trustworthy ally, whether he wanted to be or not. AQ Khan, responsible for the proliferation of nuclear technology to rogue nations is sitting fat dumb and happy in Pakistan instead of in jail where he belongs.
“Hostile” ally is an oxymoron. As the old expression goes, “With friends like that who needs enemies?” What have we received in return for the $10B. in taxpayers money we have sent to Pakistan since 2001?
Buzz
No, here’s what I really think:
It was a monumental mistake to invade Iraq in the first place.
Now we should be making plans for a reasonable withdrawal.
Yon,
Bad analogy. Here’s how it actually plays:
We will still have the star players in there – Gen. Petraeus and our troopers – whoever wins the election.
But we’ll get rid of George Bush, the incompetent coach, and our military will have civilian leadership more worthy of them.
Congratulations. Now why don’t you go back in time and fix that you ignorant slug. You want to argue about whether we were right or wrong to go into Iraq, fine. But that doesn’t change the fact that we are in there. And the time, manner, and situation in how we leave is important. And stains like you haven’t cared about the manner or situation, in leaving, only the time. And the time has always been ASAP.
Like I said no matter the circumstances you are demanding that we leave. But you wanted to make some claim at the people wanting us to stay was somehow bad. You wanted us to leave in defeat and our enemies emboldened (Hell I bet you think Sadr is still victorious), whereas the people who wanted us to stay when things were going rough and still want us to stay now that they are going better recognize that in the future we can leave when the time is right. The time is not right to leave yet because the situation is not right.
Probably believed Harry Reid when he said “the war is lost” a year ago too.
BTW why do you hate brown people so much that you want them to be killed by a now dead murdering dictator?
Hey Mr. Dave
I agree with Skeptic that between unseating the Taliban… AQ’s hosts in their Afghanistan digs… plus the Iraq action, that AQ has been on the defense instead of the offense since 911. And I believe it is this weakening, and scattering of their comfortable nest in both fronts that has prevented an attack on US soil.
Of course, the qualification of that is that neither you, nor I, actually knows the alternate universe reality. It is speculation on both our parts. However the obvious hit they have taken – both with the loss of so many of their experienced commanders, plus the financial freeze making it tougher for them to get the funding they did prior to 911 – does give us some reason to believe their weakened state may contribute to our lack of attack. So I cannot agree with your statement that “There is no reason to believe that.” All these events belie that statement on the surface.
The two Zawahiri documents I used for the above quotes have two different purposes. The first – the letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi in 2005, was not meant for publication. It was a letter that chastised him, and was requesting better communications on the Iraq front. You know, the one BHO says never was a front? In fact, Zawahiri was warning Zarqawi in the letter about security of meetings and important documents. Hardly something you include when you either anticipate, or plan, for interception.
The second “Open Meeting” was a Q & A forum that Zawahiri implicitly meant for publication. He took questions from Muslim/Arab journalists, and responded to them later. There is a part II to that forum, a translation of which has not yet been provided via Laura Mansfield. What he said in response to those questions holds with his letter to Zarqawi years before (inre Iraq). He did not have one private correspondence viewpoint between commanders, and alter it for public consumption. He has, and has always been about establishing an Islamic caliphate, and deposing the Egyptian government. So no… I do not think he was spreading deliberate misinformation. He was caught by surprise with a break down in their security of communication.
Big difference. We just plain left in the 80s. In this more recent case, we turned it over to the int’l forces of NATO. We did not lose our focus. We adjusted the war, merely working as part of an int’l army, as the libs so want us to do. Frankly, it’s always been a recipe for defeat to place command in the hands of NATO and the UN. So there is no equivalent between the 80s and 2001 to present.
I agree with quite a bit of your Pakistan statements…. with the exception of Musharraf. While he was far from perfect, he vacillated predictably back and forth, as any Muslim leader must do, to tacitly provide the intel and military aid to the US on terrorists, and still keep the support of citizens who view him as a US puppet. That is, and will always be, our problem with Muslim country allies. Thus my term, hostile ally. It is a dubious status that, at least, is superior to a hostile enemy. We need not be loved, but do need the intel and permission to go after terrorist havens with air strikes at least. I doubt we will ever expect more from a Muslim nation… including Iraq.
AG Khan and his status in Pakistan as “house arrest” still remains a problem. Pakistan refuses to allow the UN to question him. Benazir was on record prior to her assassination that she would allow that questioning to go on… thus earning the wrath of Baitullah Meshud. A man that served some purpose in her assassination, in conjunction with AQ. However you will notice that, despite her party’s election win, they still haven’t followed up on Benazir’s plan to allow the UN access to Khan. Nor have they changed his status of house arrest. As far as I know, they basically keep tabs on his whereabouts. In fact, one of their platforms for winning was reinstatement of the judges. That has yet to happen as well. Pakistan pols prove to be no more honest with their constituency than ours do with us.
But Pakistan is my largest worry for the next admin. In some ways, more than Iran. With Iran there is some agreement in the int’l community about their acquisition of nuke weaponry. Pakistan remains a very difficult situation…. a reluctant and piss porr ally. They take our cash, and give us little in return, as you said. I have no disagreement with that. Yet they whine that cash doesn’t cover their “costs”…. right.
However BHO’s suggestion to go into their territory without their permission is a disaster in the making. He is the wrong CIC to deal with Pakistan. He speaks softly to the enemy, and tough to our allies and US commanders. His priorities are backwards.
Which brings me to your comment:
If that CIC is JSM, I might agree… somewhat. While I have beefs with poor decisions and planning, I also recognize that has happened in previous warfare as well. I also have problems that it took so long to correct the strategy for more pronouced success. However I totally disagree that Iraq was a bad decision, and have an admiration for a man who did what he felt he had to for rooting out a nest of terrorist vermin in the region. He could have taken the easy way out and followed popular opinion. But he saw trouble downline. And the Harmony/ISG documents prove his fears of Saddam’s dealings with jihad groups bore out as true.
You and I will never agree on that, because neither of us can show absolutely a parallel universe with events had we allowed Saddam to stay in power and continue to use jihad groups as an unofficial State weapon. However, in light of the two paths, I see more good in the future with a free Iraq as an Arab democracy, than an Iraq under Saddam and his murderous thugs son, bolstered by his IIS and Ba’athist extremists.
“Yon, … Bad analogy. Here’s how it actually plays:” — David the dense
I’m saying what they want to do, what they would if they could (what they are trying to do), not what they oppose.
Are you really that dense, or are you auditioning for a block of wood in your class play?
__________________________________________________________________________
The meaningless verbiage that wafts through their empty little heads is to thought, as free fall is to flight.
Dems, including O’Bummer, say we should stand down in Iraq because our troops are dying there, and shift focus to Afghanistan where the real action is.
Do they mean . . .
. . . so that they can die fighting the Taliban instead of Al Qaeda and Iran?
They don’t care about our troops, or their lives, or their mission. All they care about is using America’s troubles to oust their opponents and to gain and keep power for themselves for the purpose of self enrichment. They are, in a word, parasites.