10:00 on Channel 13 NY, not sure about elsewhere.
Part I was broadcast last week and covered 2003-2009. Scathing towards many, Rumsfeld, Brenner and Maliki in particular. About the only person who came out looking good was Petraeus. Critical of the new administration as well. Part II will take it from 2009-14.
Should be worth the watch.
1st part was pretty fair assessment - basically talked about key decisions, bad and good, that had significantly consequences.
Absolutely!
PBS is available through Amazon Prime if you're a member.
Link - ( New Window )
--Accepting Maliki's governance with no pressure back, despite innumerable examples of incompetence, paranoia, and brutal behavior toward Sunnis.
--Not being willing to give any aid to more "moderate" foes of Assad.
--Being very timid and tepid when warnings of ISIS's strengthening became widely available.
The only group in this mess I'd bother arming and supplying would be the Kurds. The time has long since come to completely reassess what our strategic interests in the region are. Creating a stable, friendly Kurdistan out of northern Iraq and eastern Syria would be more beneficial to us than continuing to pretend that Turkey is a legitimate ally of ours. The Kurds are the only one of the warring factions that isn't prone to genocidal tactics. They're no angels, but they don't do ethnic cleansing, and they're generally pro-West and civilized. They deserve our help.
--Accepting Maliki's governance with no pressure back, despite innumerable examples of incompetence, paranoia, and brutal behavior toward Sunnis.
--Not being willing to give any aid to more "moderate" foes of Assad.
--Being very timid and tepid when warnings of ISIS's strengthening became widely available.
Manh - It does lean left, but it beat the crap out of both administrations in this series. Part 1 was predominately the Bush Administration's turn when they highlighted:
* After a successful "light and fast" strategy for the fighting they foolishly tried the same with respect to the occupation.
* Took the de-Baathification policy WAY too low on the totem pole with respect to government administration leaving the country without even marginally competent governance.
* Had no plan to deal with the army, even if it meant giving them severance pay, leading to a ready made, combat trained resistance ready to go.
* Bungled dealings with Maliki, which is a theme of the show from the first time we see him until the final minutes.
The only group in this mess I'd bother arming and supplying would be the Kurds. The time has long since come to completely reassess what our strategic interests in the region are. Creating a stable, friendly Kurdistan out of northern Iraq and eastern Syria would be more beneficial to us than continuing to pretend that Turkey is a legitimate ally of ours. The Kurds are the only one of the warring factions that isn't prone to genocidal tactics. They're no angels, but they don't do ethnic cleansing, and they're generally pro-West and civilized. They deserve our help.
Ironically the units that actually carried out the Armenian Genocide were largely Kurdish. But otherwise your point is taken.
Link - ( New Window )
The big negative about Obama's decision-making in Iraq, I think, is that so many smart people were warning him about Maliki, and Maliki's actions, and he did nothing. In terms of long-term global impact, possibly his worst set of decisions, and no one can say he wasn't widely warned. Frontline suggests strongly that part of the problem in that relationship was really awful signalling that Maliki took as permission to behave as he did.
As for Obama, he's always resisted being a war president despite the fact that he patently is one, but when you're facing an out of control conflagration, you don't waste time/resources saving that building (you can't). You endeavor to prevent it from spreading. Mixed results there, of course, but we wasted enough time trying to save a building that was so obviously unsalvageable.
Doesn't mean they're not mostly compelling and fact-based, however. Death By Fire is a must and I mean must watch.
That may be incorrect, but it wasn't even attempted.
On international issues, they tend to be right where they were on this series of two programs--independent, insightful, and hard to pin down as left or right.
It originally aired earlier in the year and some of it was tough to watch. Great piece though and it definitely focuses on the dehumanization of solitary on people (most of whom may be able to be rehabilitated back into society).
I disagree. I don't see anything about Maliki that suggests he was uniquely incorrigible or not amenable to the right mix of incentives. He probably wasn't as bright as some of the tinpot despots that went before him in the region but his priorities were the same, graft and cronyism. The issue is that the Administration wanted to be done with Iraq and Maliki's resistance gave them a pretty easy out. That's not to say withdrawal was the wrong call, only that this was one potential permutation and it has come to pass.
The show discussed an early meeting between Obama and Maliki where comments by Obama strongly hinted there would be no consequences if Maliki went after the Sunni who was #2 in the government. Hard to believe that didn't have an affect. Maliki and his government were always after $$ and arms. Hard to believe that a threat to turn off the spigot wouldn't have had an effect. And although it wasn't covered last night, it's hard to believe that a threat of providing large weapons to the peshmerga (sp?) couldn't have been used as leverage during the last 12 months.
Link - ( New Window )
Call me cynical, too, about the prospects for success in any Arab Muslim country. When someone legitimately does make a good faith effort toward real progress, they're either stonewalled or just outright killed. See: Sadat, Anwar. It's pathetic.