“Isn’t it shocking that Obama has threatened to change American policy just because Karzai is being difficult? Should a policy that allegedly has fulfilled US vital security interests be drastically altered because of mere personal animosity? Yet we have been down this erratic policy road before. The Obama administration argued that keeping a residual postwar US military force in Iraq was vitally necessary, only to nix a settlement when the Iraqi government refused to exempt US soldiers from Iraqi law in the event they committed crimes—a rather imperial request to say the least. We can thus surmise that perhaps such residual occupation forces were never very vital to US security.”
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4664
Related posts:
Shelter in the Storm
Andrew Sullivan Change Of Heart: 'Cameron Proves Greenwald Right'
Brazil's Central Bank Staff Goes On Strike Over Inflation
Obama: Fool Me Thrice, Shame on Whom?
Junk Bonds Soar in Price as Investors Seek Higher Rates
Government Entrepreneurship Training?
Juan Cole: Top Ten Ways US TV News are Screwing us Again on NSA Surveillance Story (Iraq Redux)
“Stalin Would Love This…”
Africa's Resources Beckon
US Pivot to Asia Promises More of the Same - Ivan Eland
Faber's 'Fed Counterfeiting' Remark is Unusual but Not Extreme These Days
Tighter Gun Laws Will Leave Libertarians Best-Armed Of All
Obama Won. Now What Will You Do?
Naomi Wolf: My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be
FBI’s Latest Proposal for a Wiretap-Ready Internet Should Be Trashed