|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 28 2015 02:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2015 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On March 28 2015 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.
“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.
Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region. Read the rest here.You know its bad when the Politico posts an article like this. Anyone still want to argue that Obama has not been a foreign policy disaster over the past six years? A big problem in Iraq was that the US continued to support a government that alienated about half the population, aka the Sunni, including a lot of former military which then pretty much lead to the creation of ISIS. Most of that happened before Obama even entered office. This is incorrect. Iraq was stable under American guidance when Obama entered office in 2009. Obama then washed his hands of Iraq and removed American support, which precipitated into the current shit show over there. And Obama had five years to manage the Iraqi government before ISIS showed up. Bush had less than that (invasion was summer 2003, government was not set up until years afterwards). ISI(S) existed in Iraq since 2006, Sunni insurgency groups in Iraq started already in 2003/2004. The country was pretty much in a civil war by 2006/2007 with millions displaced. How is this stable?
This is disingenuous, too. You can't cite the pre-surge status of Iraq as evidence against my argument that it was stable when Bush left office. The armed insurgency was over.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'd refrain from politicization of military decisions.
|
There were tens of thousands of people fighting. The refugee number went up from 1.6 million in 2006 to 4.7 million in 2008. Terrorism was pretty much everywhere, Iraq effectively stopped existing somewhere after 2005 or whatever.The failed state index put Iraq in the top 5 between 2005 and 2008. If that is your definition of stable I don't want to know what unstable looks like.
|
On March 28 2015 02:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 02:38 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2015 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2015 02:23 Nyxisto wrote:On March 28 2015 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.
“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.
Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region. Read the rest here.You know its bad when the Politico posts an article like this. Anyone still want to argue that Obama has not been a foreign policy disaster over the past six years? A big problem in Iraq was that the US continued to support a government that alienated about half the population, aka the Sunni, including a lot of former military which then pretty much lead to the creation of ISIS. Most of that happened before Obama even entered office. This is incorrect. Iraq was stable under American guidance when Obama entered office in 2009. Obama then washed his hands of Iraq and removed American support, which precipitated into the current shit show over there. And Obama had five years to manage the Iraqi government before ISIS showed up. Bush had less than that (invasion was summer 2003, government was not set up until years afterwards). You mean the treaty that was signed by Bush that required Obama to leave Iraq? yeah totally Obama's fault. Esp when the government wanted America out aswell. Treaty This is outright disingenuous. If Bush were still in office, a status of forces agreement would have been signed maintaining American presence in the country. No one disputes this.
Ofc its Obama's fault. Nothing to do with the Iraqi government wanting all Americans off their soil and refusing to let other some stay like Obama tried to negotiate.
Surely the reality is that they would rather die to ISIS then work with Obama....
I'm not blaming Bush for America leaving Iraq, they wanted you gone, but lets not pretend that this is Obama's fault either.
|
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq.
|
On March 28 2015 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq.
The government wanted you out and there was a treaty for all of American soldiers to be gone by a set date.
So are you advocating that Obama should have re-invaded Iraq and remove the government that the US had help get elected?
|
On March 28 2015 01:59 Silvanel wrote:
Obviously, but accoring to that source he made a claim that You can drink a quart of it safely. He should be more carefull.
it's a nice mix of stupid corporate person not thinking his pr strategy through, hysteria, and dumb people. montasano and anything in that realm needs way more oversight, but the people who constantly talk about that shit endlessly on social media are the same quacks who go on about fluoride in water, shots causing autism, and so on
as far as Iraq, that was a shit sandwich for anyone who came in, dem or republican. not having a strong presence to control happenings there was going to create issues, but our constant shenanigans in the middle east is the exact reason that they all fucking hate us in the first place. continuing to occupy Iraq was not going to improve anything either
|
On March 28 2015 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq.
I appreciate your efforts to define recent history, but the fact is, there was never any stability there at all post-occupation. There was only the US's absolute military control.
The only stability Iraq ever had was under brutal dictatorship, Saddam Hussein. Sad, but true.
As others have pointed out, the world wanted America out of Iraq. Iraqis wanted America out of Iraq. Democrats won in 2008 because Americans wanted us out of Iraq. Bush left office with the understanding and plan in motion that we would get out of Iraq.
But of course, now it's all Obama's fault. He should've ignored everyone and kept up a seemingly never-ending occupation.
People were saying since 2003 that Iraq would become a major religious conflict without Saddam Hussein. Now it's news? Well, now it's Obama's fault.
"I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise"? Really? I don't think anyone was putting anything close to those words in your mouth. The reality is so completely far removed from that.
Face it, the entire premise of our involvement there was a false premise on multiple levels. Not talking about WMDs (although I'd like to) -- but, even more important, the ridiculously false premise that we could occupy Iraq and then just leave it basking under the glorious freedom of Murican Democracy.
|
On March 28 2015 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq. The government wanted you out and there was a treaty for all of American soldiers to be gone by a set date. So are you advocating that Obama should have re-invaded Iraq and remove the government that the US had help get elected?
You're buying into liberal revisionist history. It's all bullshit. From the NY Times in 2011:
BAGHDAD — President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.
And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. But officials also held out hope that after the withdrawal, the two countries could restart negotiations more productively, as two sovereign nations.
This year, American military officials had said they wanted a “residual” force of as many as tens of thousands of American troops to remain in Iraq past 2011 as an insurance policy against any violence. Those numbers were scaled back, but the expectation was that at least about 3,000 to 5,000 American troops would remain.
At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.
Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.
Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.
Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.
In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.
Intelligence assessments that Iraq was not at great risk of slipping into chaos in the absence of American forces were a factor in the decision, an American official said.
This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.
Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.
But the repeated lesson of Iraqi politics is that putatively final agreements are always subject to revision. Even now, with a definitive sounding statement from the president, the two sides are continuing to discuss a continuing military relationship.
Shortly after Mr. Obama’s remarks, which were carried on Iraqi television, Gen. Babakir Zebari, the chief of staff of the Iraqi Army, who has said previously that Iraq’s security forces would need American help until 2020, said in a statement that the country still needed military trainers.
Sami al-Askari, a member of Parliament and close adviser to Mr. Maliki, said in an interview that, Mr. Obama’s statement notwithstanding, not much had really changed. “As we said before, the SOFA is totally different from the trainers issue, which is still under negotiation, because we have said that there is a necessity for trainers,” he said.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta held out the possibility of keeping a small force of American military trainers in Iraq in the future, although there are no negotiations under way on numbers or a mission.
“We’re prepared to meet their training needs, we’re prepared to engage in exercises with them, we’re prepared to provide guidance and training with regard to their pilots, we’re prepared to continue to develop an ongoing relationship with them in the future,” Mr. Panetta told reporters on his plane on Friday en route to Indonesia.
On Friday evening, an American official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are confidential, said that negotiations would now center on arrangements that would begin next year, after all United States troops leave.
Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to return in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation, even though legally it ended years ago. Other scenarios being discussed include offering training in the United States, in a nearby country such as Kuwait, or having some troops here under NATO auspices.
Source.
|
On March 28 2015 03:09 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq. I appreciate your efforts to define recent history, but the fact is, there was never any stability there at all post-occupation. There was only absolute military control. The only stability Iraq ever had was under brutal dictatorship, Saddam Hussein. Sad, but true. As others have pointed out, the world wanted America out of Iraq. Iraqis wanted America out of Iraq. Democrats won in 2008 because Americans wanted us out of Iraq. Bush left office with the understanding and plan in motion that we would get out of Iraq. But of course, now it's all Obama's fault. He should've ignored everyone and kept up a seemingly never-ending occupation. People were saying since 2003 that Iraq would become a major religious conflict without Saddam Hussein. Now it's news? Well, now it's Obama's fault. "I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise"? Really? I don't think anyone was putting anything close to those words in your mouth. The reality is so completely far removed from that. Face it, the entire premise of our involvement there was a false premise on multiple levels. Not talking about WMDs (although I'd like to) -- but, even more important, the ridiculously false premise that we could occupy Iraq and then just leave it basking under the glorious freedom of Murican Democracy.
You're buying into liberal revisionist history, too. See my post above.
|
On March 28 2015 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.
“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.
Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region. Read the rest here.You know its bad when the Politico posts an article like this. Anyone still want to argue that Obama has not been a foreign policy disaster over the past six years?
It's close enough to 2016 for Politico to need to start trashing previous Democrat foreign policy, so the new candidates foreign policy can be contrasted for profit. The previous administration promised to not make stupid foreign policy and failed, but this time, we have a policy that will definitely avoid the imbecilic paths and move to enlighten small-s superpower.
I liked the "but of late they have been repeatedly caught off guard."
|
On March 28 2015 03:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 02:05 xDaunt wrote:Barack Obama faces a slew of Middle East crises that some call the worst in a generation, as new chaos from Yemen to Iraq — along with deteriorating U.S.-Israeli relations — is confounding the president’s efforts to stabilize the region and strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
The meltdown has Obama officials defending their management of a region that some call impossible to control, even as critics say U.S. policies there are partly to blame for the spreading anarchy.
“If there’s one lesson this administration has learned, from President Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech through the Arab Spring, it’s that when it comes to this region, nothing happens in a linear way — and precious little is actually about us, which is a hard reality to accept,” said a senior State Department official.
Not everyone is so forgiving. “We’re in a goddamn free fall here,” said James Jeffrey, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Iraq and was a top national security aide in the George W. Bush White House.
For years, members of the Obama team have grappled with the chaotic aftermath of the Arab Spring. But of late they have been repeatedly caught off-guard, raising new questions about America’s ability to manage the dangerous region. Read the rest here.You know its bad when the Politico posts an article like this. Anyone still want to argue that Obama has not been a foreign policy disaster over the past six years? It's close enough to 2016 for Politico to need to start trashing previous Democrat foreign policy, so the new candidates foreign policy can be contrasted for profit. The previous administration promised to not make stupid foreign policy and failed, but this time, we have a policy that will definitely avoid the imbecilic paths and move to enlighten small-s superpower. I liked the "but of late they have been repeatedly caught off guard."
Obama has always been offguard and behind the 8-ball in foreign policy. It's not like this is new. The only difference is that the frequency of his errors is increasing.
|
Am I too late to measure mine?
On the realz, the Iraq War was split between two administrations and cannot be viewed through a single lens. Some context is required. Some magnificent fuck-up-erry G-Dubya style is required.
Obama took on two wars, one of which was America's longest, the other precipitated by false claims, intended or otherwise. The most powerful military force on the planet can stabilize a region on command, and to stabilize Iraq all we would have had to do is stay there......................FOREVER.
Clearly an exit strategy was required. Was it poorly implemented? Yes. This is blatantly evident by the inadequate (laughable, really) capability of Iraq's national forces, the subsequent loss of millions in cutting-edge military technology (not to mention handing it over to future enemies, a la Al-Qaeda), and the complete unraveling of the Middle East today.
|
On March 28 2015 03:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 03:09 Leporello wrote:On March 28 2015 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq. I appreciate your efforts to define recent history, but the fact is, there was never any stability there at all post-occupation. There was only absolute military control. The only stability Iraq ever had was under brutal dictatorship, Saddam Hussein. Sad, but true. As others have pointed out, the world wanted America out of Iraq. Iraqis wanted America out of Iraq. Democrats won in 2008 because Americans wanted us out of Iraq. Bush left office with the understanding and plan in motion that we would get out of Iraq. But of course, now it's all Obama's fault. He should've ignored everyone and kept up a seemingly never-ending occupation. People were saying since 2003 that Iraq would become a major religious conflict without Saddam Hussein. Now it's news? Well, now it's Obama's fault. "I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise"? Really? I don't think anyone was putting anything close to those words in your mouth. The reality is so completely far removed from that. Face it, the entire premise of our involvement there was a false premise on multiple levels. Not talking about WMDs (although I'd like to) -- but, even more important, the ridiculously false premise that we could occupy Iraq and then just leave it basking under the glorious freedom of Murican Democracy. You're buying into liberal revisionist history, too. See my post above.
Revisionist history? No.
No one is disputing you on the point that our leaving Iraq was going to leave it in chaos.
Where people are arguing with you is your desire to put this all on your partisan choice. America's removal from Iraq was decided not just by Obama. He was doing what he promised he would do, and what people wanted him to do.
I know, and I'm sure many others here do as well, that there were disagreements from military generals and intelligence, that we should have stayed.
But I don't think they're anymore "right" than Obama or everyone else who wanted us to leave.
I think you're delusional if you think a few more years of American occupation would've prevented this. Unless we invaded and occupied Syria as well. Maybe occupy the whole Middle East, as I'm sure our more militant allies in Israel would approve of.
Unless we were going to permanently own Iraq (not even a possibility), and invade Syria on top of that... this was going to happen.
It's actually ridiculous what you're arguing. ISIS exists to assume control of Iraq... The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
Such a purpose and organization only exists because we created that vacancy.
Yeah, THAT'S Obama's fault. A revolutionary force in Iraq exists because... of Obama. LOL.
To put it in simple partisan terms: your guy broke it, and now you want to blame the next guy for not doing the impossible job of cleaning it up.
|
On March 28 2015 03:27 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 03:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2015 03:09 Leporello wrote:On March 28 2015 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq. I appreciate your efforts to define recent history, but the fact is, there was never any stability there at all post-occupation. There was only absolute military control. The only stability Iraq ever had was under brutal dictatorship, Saddam Hussein. Sad, but true. As others have pointed out, the world wanted America out of Iraq. Iraqis wanted America out of Iraq. Democrats won in 2008 because Americans wanted us out of Iraq. Bush left office with the understanding and plan in motion that we would get out of Iraq. But of course, now it's all Obama's fault. He should've ignored everyone and kept up a seemingly never-ending occupation. People were saying since 2003 that Iraq would become a major religious conflict without Saddam Hussein. Now it's news? Well, now it's Obama's fault. "I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise"? Really? I don't think anyone was putting anything close to those words in your mouth. The reality is so completely far removed from that. Face it, the entire premise of our involvement there was a false premise on multiple levels. Not talking about WMDs (although I'd like to) -- but, even more important, the ridiculously false premise that we could occupy Iraq and then just leave it basking under the glorious freedom of Murican Democracy. You're buying into liberal revisionist history, too. See my post above. Revisionist history? No. No one is disputing you on the point that our leaving Iraq was going to leave it in chaos. Where people are arguing with you is your desire to put this all on your partisan choice. America's removal from Iraq was decided not just by Obama. He was doing what he promised he would do, and what people wanted him to do. I know, and I'm sure many others here do as well, that there were disagreements from military generals and intelligence, that we should have stayed. But I don't think they're anymore "right" than Obama or everyone else who wanted us to leave. I think you're delusional if you think a few more years of American occupation would've prevented this. Unless we invaded and occupied Syria as well. Maybe occupy the whole Middle East, as I'm sure our more militant allies in Israel would approve of. Unless we were going to permanently own Iraq (not even a possibility), this was going to happen. It's actually ridiculous what you're arguing. ISIS exists to assume control of Iraq... The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Such a purpose and organization only exists because we created that vacancy. Yeah, THAT'S Obama's fault. A revolutionary force in Iraq exists because... of Obama. LOL. To put it in simple partisan terms: your guy broke it, and now you want to blame the next guy for not doing the impossible job of cleaning it up.
Take some time to actually read and understand my argument before posting. You're not GreenHorizons.
|
On March 28 2015 03:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2015 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq. The government wanted you out and there was a treaty for all of American soldiers to be gone by a set date. So are you advocating that Obama should have re-invaded Iraq and remove the government that the US had help get elected? You're buying into liberal revisionist history. It's all bullshit. From the NY Times in 2011: Show nested quote +BAGHDAD — President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.
And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. But officials also held out hope that after the withdrawal, the two countries could restart negotiations more productively, as two sovereign nations.
This year, American military officials had said they wanted a “residual” force of as many as tens of thousands of American troops to remain in Iraq past 2011 as an insurance policy against any violence. Those numbers were scaled back, but the expectation was that at least about 3,000 to 5,000 American troops would remain.
At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.
Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.
Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.
Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.
In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.
Intelligence assessments that Iraq was not at great risk of slipping into chaos in the absence of American forces were a factor in the decision, an American official said.
This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.
Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.
But the repeated lesson of Iraqi politics is that putatively final agreements are always subject to revision. Even now, with a definitive sounding statement from the president, the two sides are continuing to discuss a continuing military relationship.
Shortly after Mr. Obama’s remarks, which were carried on Iraqi television, Gen. Babakir Zebari, the chief of staff of the Iraqi Army, who has said previously that Iraq’s security forces would need American help until 2020, said in a statement that the country still needed military trainers.
Sami al-Askari, a member of Parliament and close adviser to Mr. Maliki, said in an interview that, Mr. Obama’s statement notwithstanding, not much had really changed. “As we said before, the SOFA is totally different from the trainers issue, which is still under negotiation, because we have said that there is a necessity for trainers,” he said.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta held out the possibility of keeping a small force of American military trainers in Iraq in the future, although there are no negotiations under way on numbers or a mission.
“We’re prepared to meet their training needs, we’re prepared to engage in exercises with them, we’re prepared to provide guidance and training with regard to their pilots, we’re prepared to continue to develop an ongoing relationship with them in the future,” Mr. Panetta told reporters on his plane on Friday en route to Indonesia.
On Friday evening, an American official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are confidential, said that negotiations would now center on arrangements that would begin next year, after all United States troops leave.
Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to return in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation, even though legally it ended years ago. Other scenarios being discussed include offering training in the United States, in a nearby country such as Kuwait, or having some troops here under NATO auspices. Source.
US wanted immunity from prosecution, you know the whole war crime stuff, and Iraq wasn't willing to give it. Hence no US troops stayed behind.
Again I don't see what your argument is. If Obama had agreed to send troops without the provision and they were then arrested and tried in Iraq for crimes you would be throwing a tantrum.
|
On March 28 2015 03:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 03:27 Leporello wrote:On March 28 2015 03:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2015 03:09 Leporello wrote:On March 28 2015 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq. I appreciate your efforts to define recent history, but the fact is, there was never any stability there at all post-occupation. There was only absolute military control. The only stability Iraq ever had was under brutal dictatorship, Saddam Hussein. Sad, but true. As others have pointed out, the world wanted America out of Iraq. Iraqis wanted America out of Iraq. Democrats won in 2008 because Americans wanted us out of Iraq. Bush left office with the understanding and plan in motion that we would get out of Iraq. But of course, now it's all Obama's fault. He should've ignored everyone and kept up a seemingly never-ending occupation. People were saying since 2003 that Iraq would become a major religious conflict without Saddam Hussein. Now it's news? Well, now it's Obama's fault. "I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise"? Really? I don't think anyone was putting anything close to those words in your mouth. The reality is so completely far removed from that. Face it, the entire premise of our involvement there was a false premise on multiple levels. Not talking about WMDs (although I'd like to) -- but, even more important, the ridiculously false premise that we could occupy Iraq and then just leave it basking under the glorious freedom of Murican Democracy. You're buying into liberal revisionist history, too. See my post above. Revisionist history? No. No one is disputing you on the point that our leaving Iraq was going to leave it in chaos. Where people are arguing with you is your desire to put this all on your partisan choice. America's removal from Iraq was decided not just by Obama. He was doing what he promised he would do, and what people wanted him to do. I know, and I'm sure many others here do as well, that there were disagreements from military generals and intelligence, that we should have stayed. But I don't think they're anymore "right" than Obama or everyone else who wanted us to leave. I think you're delusional if you think a few more years of American occupation would've prevented this. Unless we invaded and occupied Syria as well. Maybe occupy the whole Middle East, as I'm sure our more militant allies in Israel would approve of. Unless we were going to permanently own Iraq (not even a possibility), this was going to happen. It's actually ridiculous what you're arguing. ISIS exists to assume control of Iraq... The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Such a purpose and organization only exists because we created that vacancy. Yeah, THAT'S Obama's fault. A revolutionary force in Iraq exists because... of Obama. LOL. To put it in simple partisan terms: your guy broke it, and now you want to blame the next guy for not doing the impossible job of cleaning it up. Take some time to actually read and understand my argument before posting. You're not GreenHorizons.
I did, I read the article you linked entirely. What you're arguing is based off completely false premises and impossible assumptions.
Yes, again, I acknowledge that there were disagreements in the military to our withdrawal.
But you want to interpret that in all the wrong ways.
Again, there was very little choice (if any) for Obama in Iraq. And I don't think any choice, including what his critics or military may have proposed, would have made things better (even IF they were politically/logistically plausible).
Democracy in Iraq, especially under the circumstances it was "fermented", was doomed to failure.
And please don't place me in some TL-poster hierarchy, for lack of having an actual response.
edit: To be fair, I do think more could have been done in Iraq, mainly we could've pushed harder, politically, to dissolve Iraq into separate states. But I think that ship kind of sailed under Bush's presidency, and his 5 years of initial occupation.
It would have been great if we had such a plan when we went in.
However, I do think we could've done more, politically, during our withdrawal process.
But to say that our withdrawal is what has primarily created the problem of ISIS is ridiculous.
Iraq was never going to have a proper military to fight ISIS. Their military ran from ISIS, not because they were scared or unorganized, but because the people, the soldiers, didn't care to fight ISIS. That is a systemic, cultural, political problem --- not a military one.
|
On March 28 2015 03:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2015 03:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2015 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2015 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not arguing that Iraq was a paradise when Bush left office. Clearly there were ongoing problems, which necessitated ongoing American support and guidance. My point is that Obama threw the opportunity away to provide that support and guidance, which substantially contributed to the current, demonstrably worse, situation in Iraq. The government wanted you out and there was a treaty for all of American soldiers to be gone by a set date. So are you advocating that Obama should have re-invaded Iraq and remove the government that the US had help get elected? You're buying into liberal revisionist history. It's all bullshit. From the NY Times in 2011: BAGHDAD — President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.
And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. But officials also held out hope that after the withdrawal, the two countries could restart negotiations more productively, as two sovereign nations.
This year, American military officials had said they wanted a “residual” force of as many as tens of thousands of American troops to remain in Iraq past 2011 as an insurance policy against any violence. Those numbers were scaled back, but the expectation was that at least about 3,000 to 5,000 American troops would remain.
At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.
Over the last year, in late-night meetings at the fortified compound of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in videoconferences between Baghdad and Washington, American and Iraqi negotiators had struggled to reach an agreement. All the while, both Mr. Obama and the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, gave the world a wink and nod, always saying that Iraq was ready to stand on its own but never fully closing the door on the possibility of American troops’ staying on.
Through the summer, American officials continued to assume that the agreement would be amended, and Mr. Obama was willing to support a continued military presence. In June, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that Mr. Obama had told Mr. Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies.
Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.
In August, after debates between the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House, the Americans settled on the 3,000 to 5,000 number, which was reported in August. According to two people briefed on the matter, one inside the administration and one outside, the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those of the military.
Intelligence assessments that Iraq was not at great risk of slipping into chaos in the absence of American forces were a factor in the decision, an American official said.
This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.
Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.
But the repeated lesson of Iraqi politics is that putatively final agreements are always subject to revision. Even now, with a definitive sounding statement from the president, the two sides are continuing to discuss a continuing military relationship.
Shortly after Mr. Obama’s remarks, which were carried on Iraqi television, Gen. Babakir Zebari, the chief of staff of the Iraqi Army, who has said previously that Iraq’s security forces would need American help until 2020, said in a statement that the country still needed military trainers.
Sami al-Askari, a member of Parliament and close adviser to Mr. Maliki, said in an interview that, Mr. Obama’s statement notwithstanding, not much had really changed. “As we said before, the SOFA is totally different from the trainers issue, which is still under negotiation, because we have said that there is a necessity for trainers,” he said.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta held out the possibility of keeping a small force of American military trainers in Iraq in the future, although there are no negotiations under way on numbers or a mission.
“We’re prepared to meet their training needs, we’re prepared to engage in exercises with them, we’re prepared to provide guidance and training with regard to their pilots, we’re prepared to continue to develop an ongoing relationship with them in the future,” Mr. Panetta told reporters on his plane on Friday en route to Indonesia.
On Friday evening, an American official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are confidential, said that negotiations would now center on arrangements that would begin next year, after all United States troops leave.
Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to return in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation, even though legally it ended years ago. Other scenarios being discussed include offering training in the United States, in a nearby country such as Kuwait, or having some troops here under NATO auspices. Source. US wanted immunity from prosecution, you know the whole war crime stuff, and Iraq wasn't willing to give it. Hence no US troops stayed behind. Again I don't see what your argument is. If Obama had agreed to send troops without the provision and they were then arrested and tried in Iraq for crimes you would be throwing a tantrum.
Yep, and look at what the NY Times article says about how the Administration bungled negotiations on that sensitive point. It was handled badly and with all of the care expected of someone who was looking to simply walk away from Iraq. And it's not like Obama made any real effort to resume negotiations after the troop withdrawal.
|
That's not what the article said at all. The article stated the political nature of the compromise surrounded al-Maliki's inability to garner support from within his own parliament:
Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq.
As the article correctly stated, this stems from a history of encroachments on Iraqi sovereignty, and although the vast majority of high-ranking Iraqi military officials desperately wanted (needed) a continued American presence, al-Maliki's civilian opponents in Parliament had reservations, and the appeasement of such reservations in the name of Iraqi sovereignty effectively soured negotiations.
Literally had nothing to do with war crimes. That's straight from left-field.
|
On March 28 2015 03:42 always_winter wrote:That's not what the article said at all. The article stated the political nature of the compromise surrounded al-Maliki's inability to garner support from within his own parliament: Show nested quote +Mr. Maliki was afraid that if he came out publicly in favor of keeping troops without gaining the support of other parties in Parliament, his rivals — particularly the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi — would exploit the issue to weaken his shaky coalition government. Eventually, he got authorization from the group to begin talks with the Americans on keeping troops in Iraq. As the article correctly stated, this stems from a history of encroachments on Iraqi sovereignty, and although the vast majority of high-ranking Iraqi military officials desperately wanted (needed) a continued American presence, al-Maliki's civilian opponents in Parliament had reservations, and the appeasement of such reservations in the name of Iraqi sovereignty effectively soured negotiations. Literally had nothing to do with war crimes. That's straight from left-field.
Try again:
"This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.
Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
