Dear Ms. Bachmann,
How are you? I am fine. I saw you on the news this morning, talking to Bob Schieffer. Your hair looked very nice. You said some things, though, that made me worried. You said that Barack Obama failed the USA and Iraq by withdrawing all troops that were not attached to a diplomatic mission. This makes me think that a President Bachmann would have kept the troops there. This would be a huge mistake.
Iraq’s government refused to grant US forces immunity from prosecution. This would leave the US soldiers there wide open to all sorts of legal hassles. Even if our forces made no mistakes, locals could still sue the deep pockets of the USA whenever they felt lucky. Should a soldier make a mistake, he or she would be fully liable for damages. That is bad because it is not good. If you kept soldiers there, Ms. Bachmann, you would put them all in legal jeopardy.
It’s not like the soldiers are going that far away, either. Kuwait still keeps a huge US military presence in the region. Kuwait is next to Iraq. If we had to invade Iraq again, we could do it like we did the last time, and use the troops in Kuwait to do the job.
But then you criticized President Obama for getting the US involved in two more conflicts, so that got me confused. Do you want the US Army involved in foreign conflicts or don’t you? You criticized him for the US’ involvement in Libya, but that involvement is pretty much over. There’s no need to prop up Qaddafi now that he’s dead. The other involvement sent 100 troops into Uganda to help end a reign of terror imposed by the Lord’s Resistance Army, which does horrible things.
As a side note, I find it extremely ironic that right-wing commentators questioned Romney’s Christianity but were quick to defend the Christian connections of the LRA, even though the LRA engaged in mass rape, dismemberments, and other atrocities. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever accused Mr. Romney of mass rape, dismemberment, or other atrocities, unless one considers provided broad-based health care to be an atrocity. But I digress.
Obama got the US involved in a war that is now over and another conflict in an advisory capacity. You complained that when the US troops leave Iraq that there would be fewer troops there than in Honduras. I want to know why you think it’s necessary to keep US troops in Honduras. You said that every time the US deposed a dictator, it left troops behind to keep a handle on things. Actually, Ms. Bachmann, the US troops helped to prop up a different dictator until he was able to establish his own death squads and other security apparatus like that. Iraq is trying to not have death squads, so maybe that’s for the best.
You also accused Iran of being ready to pounce on Iraq and snap it up. Iraq won’t let that happen. There are many reasons why the Iraqis, even though most of them are Shi’a, won’t agree to domination by Iran. Biggest among those reasons is that the Arabs of Iraq know that the Persians of Iran have a very hostile opinion of them.
Turkey won’t let it happen, either. They’re active in northern Iraq, fighting the Kurdish PKK there.
Besides, Ms. Bachmann, the war in Iraq pretty much did end about 3 years ago when the Sunni Iraqis decided to stop working with al-Qaeda. Since then, the violence in Iraq dropped by about 90%. Northern Mexico is now more dangerous than Iraq.
You also said we’re being kicked out by the people we liberated. Those people don’t see the US regime as a liberation. While Saddam Hussein was deposed, the subsequent occupation and the rules that went with it were hardly up to the standards of the good ol’ USA. At best, we were protecting Iraqis from their own nasty elements. The Iraqis will have to enact laws and agree to live in a civil, corruption-free society on their own in order to liberate themselves.
What really got me was when you demanded that the Iraqis reimburse the USA for the cost of the invasion and occupation. I suppose they would if they were in turn reimbursed for the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties killed in US military actions. Or is that ingratitude?
Trying to understand your logic is really starting to make my head hurt. Maybe I should just stick to commenting about your hair, which really is nice. Who does it for you?
Also, one more thing: since there’s no way in the world you’ll win the nomination for the GOP’s presidential candidate, who do you endorse? Or are you going to do the “crazy” thing and stay in the race? Just curious.
Sincerely,
Dean Webb
For all the flack Obama suffers from domestically, he sure has a dynamite foreign policy record. Paul, Romney, Huntsman and several other candidates at least give him that much (presumably so they won’t appear 100% partisan in nature). I think Bachmann suggesting otherwise shows just how removed from reality she’s become. She didn’t get a single vote at the Ohio Straw Poll, two less than Marco Rubio…
On a side note, I think Marcus does her hair.
If Bachmann knows that she will not gain many votes with her foreign policy why does she show it off so much? Is it more beneficial to focus on other ideals or to have strong opposing opinions against Obama for the sake of her conservative campaign?
Honestly, I think it’s too late for Bachmann. She can act as a spoiler on another candidate, but I doubt she’ll get any serious support.
US troops should have never gone to Iraq in the first place. This is just like the Vietnam War. We were fighting in an unfamiliar environment, and it’s not to our advantage.
This is only one more notch in Michele bachmann’s crazy belt. But what else would I expect from someone who claimed lion king was gay propaganda?
I don’t understand why every election season, people enter the presidential race without knowing their stuff. Navigating this country through international disputes is probably one of the hardest jobs in the world and the person who does it needs to have extensive knowledge and experience in foreign affairs.
Seems like Michele Bachmann is one of those crazy people who think the rest of the world is at fault (making Iraq reimburse the U.S., what the heck???) while the United States is always wrong. At a time when foreign interaction is so crucial for the U.S., it’s probably best that Bachmann is not getting a lot of support.
Michele Bachmann has absolutely no idea what so ever about the arguments she brings forth to the table. She basically criticizes Obama’s actions toward the troops, but in fact she has no legitimate reasoning for why she thinks Obama is wrong for taking the troops out or getting involved getting involved in the U.S. and foreign relationships. Every point she brings up basically contradicts an argument she already presented, and it’s making her less intelligent with the comments that flow out of her mouth.