Bagdad Falling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The point you’re missing - or glossing over - is that the dates weren’t set in stone. They were subject to conditions on the ground. Conditions to which Obama paid no heed in his rush to pull stumps.[/quote]

What? Cite this in the Status of Forces Agreement. I linked it a few pages back.

And let’s say you’re right. That adds a nuance, but it doesn’t change a thing about my point here.

But anyway, please cite the relevant portion of the SOFA.[/quote]

The agreement does state that “all United States forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory” by the end of 2011. The barely disguised intent, however, is that the terms will be renegotiated beforehand to sanction an enduring American presence.[/quote]

An enduring American presence would have been wise. Indeed, our present situation makes this abundantly clear. However, both Bush and Obama failed to secure jurisdictional immunity for American troops. Maliki could not even consent to a vestigial security contingent of a few thousand extra Americans. This was a product of internal Iraqi politics. The prospect of an “indefinite occupation,” as the Iraqis saw it, was simply political toxin in Baghdad.

Now, we can say that Obama should have tried harder, done better, renegotiated the SOFA, pushed for a more stable agreement (and we can say the same of Bush–the SOFA should have provided for an enduring presence from the get-go. It didn’t. Had it, ISIS would not be in the headlines right now.) But we are now a far cry from the claims that occasioned my participation in this thread. I try to stay away from foreign-affairs analysis around here because I find that too many of the participants know too little about the most basic principles relevant to the discussion. Truly facile misconception abounds. (I am not talking about you.) However, things that are simple, provable error should always be corrected. So I corrected it.

Indeed, but the SOFA, with its specific prescription, rendered this language irrelevant. Any promises in the SAF about “long-term relationships in…security fields” (which, by the way, we may be on the cusp of fulfilling anywho) would not have changed the simple fact that a violation of the SOFA could have meant Iraqi trials for the violators. (The Iraqi government has in fact invoked SOFA violation and tried to claim the right to prosecute Americans on more than once occasion.)

182

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What were the intervening variables in the Iraqi security environment when US combat forces began their withdraw? You asset that the country was largely pacified in 2008 as a result of the surge, of which I agree led to significant gains.

[/quote]

It was. Due to US forces. The insurgency reached its lowest point in 2010 with an average of 10 car bombings a month. By 2013 after US forces had left car bombings were up to an average of 68 a months. Now ISIS has launched an all out assault.

See above.

[quote]

Did top US military and intelligence officers express their belief that Iraq would again devolve after the pacifying influence of US forces receded? [/quote]

Absolutely they did. Want me to dig out some quotes from the top brass?[/quote]

I never said they didn’t. I just wanted you to produce those statements in question for the sake of discussion.

183

From the SAF:

“Such security and defense cooperation shall be undertaken pursuant to the
Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the
Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their
Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq.”

So, as I said, the SOFA eclipses the SAF on the question of troop presence and withdrawal. The latter is subordinate to the former on the relevant questions.

184

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What were the intervening variables in the Iraqi security environment when US combat forces began their withdraw? You asset that the country was largely pacified in 2008 as a result of the surge, of which I agree led to significant gains.

[/quote]

It was. Due to US forces. The insurgency reached its lowest point in 2010 with an average of 10 car bombings a month. By 2013 after US forces had left car bombings were up to an average of 68 a months. Now ISIS has launched an all out assault.

See above.

[quote]

Did top US military and intelligence officers express their belief that Iraq would again devolve after the pacifying influence of US forces receded? [/quote]

Absolutely they did. Want me to dig out some quotes from the top brass?[/quote]

I never said they didn’t. I just wanted you to produce those statements in question for the sake of discussion.[/quote]

2008: ABC News’ Jonathan Karl Reports: The Joint Chiefs chairman has a word of warning to Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: A rapid of withdrawal from Iraq would lead to a “chaotic situation” and would "turnaround the gains we have achieved, and struggled to achieve, and turn them around overnight.
Admiral Mullen’s comments came in a response to a question about what the Joint Chiefs are doing to prepare for a new president, given that two of the candidates have called for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

185

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
From the SAF:

“Such security and defense cooperation shall be undertaken pursuant to the
Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the
Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their
Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq.”

So, as I said, the SOFA eclipses the SAF on the question of troop presence and withdrawal. The latter is subordinate to the former on the relevant questions.[/quote]

I’m not so sure SOFA was as inflexible as you are suggesting. It appears that many people expected a more gradual drawdown.

186

The last couple article I’ve read, albeit of dubious credibility, state that the new goal is to split Iraq into 3 separate entities: a kurdish, shiia, and sunni.

Given their millenia old differences, I don’t think anyboy thinks a unified government will work, especially with the Gulf States all rooting for their own personal teams. Forcing Maliki in favor of a unified government out won’t really do anything, except create a bigger power vacuum, and instead of the different insurgencies/factions shooting each other in the streets, they will be shooting each other in government offices. Although, you still have the EU and their influence in the UN trying to make the model work for economic reasons which time will tell, I don’t think you are dealing with the same situation in the Middle East.

I haven’t researched it much, but considering the resources spent “liberating” Iraq, the US and it’s oil industry didn’t benefit much from the Iraqi resources. Re-engineering the country will likely null and void those contracts, given the US a second shot, although this is me speculating as I’m not really all that informed of how all this played out.

187

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
From the SAF:

“Such security and defense cooperation shall be undertaken pursuant to the
Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the
Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their
Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq.”

So, as I said, the SOFA eclipses the SAF on the question of troop presence and withdrawal. The latter is subordinate to the former on the relevant questions.[/quote]

I’m not so sure SOFA was as inflexible as you are suggesting. It appears that many people expected a more gradual drawdown.[/quote]

I believe they expected it to be renegotiated or superseded. I am not in any way proficient in diplomatic legalese, but the SOFA’s relevant clauses seem truly inflexible:

“All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no
later than December 31, 2011.”

Definition of terms:

“‘United States Forces’ means the entity comprising the members of the
United States Armed Forces, their associated civilian component, and all
property, equipment, and materiel of the United States Armed Forces present
in the territory of Iraq.”

188

Here is Petreous’s take:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-must-not-iraq-air-force-shiite-militias-094421950.html

189

[quote]theuofh wrote:
The last couple article I’ve read, albeit of dubious credibility, state that the new goal is to split Iraq into 3 separate entities: a kurdish, shiia, and sunni.

Given their millenia old differences, I don’t think anyboy thinks a unified government will work, especially with the Gulf States all rooting for their own personal teams. Forcing Maliki in favor of a unified government out won’t really do anything, except create a bigger power vacuum, and instead of the different insurgencies/factions shooting each other in the streets, they will be shooting each other in government offices. Although, you still have the EU and their influence in the UN trying to make the model work for economic reasons which time will tell, I don’t think you are dealing with the same situation in the Middle East.

I haven’t researched it much, but considering the resources spent “liberating” Iraq, the US and it’s oil industry didn’t benefit much from the Iraqi resources. Re-engineering the country will likely null and void those contracts, given the US a second shot, although this is me speculating as I’m not really all that informed of how all this played out.
[/quote]

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/could-iraq-divided-into-separate-regions-along-shiite-sunni-kurdish-lines/p32394

Could Iraq be divided into separate regions along Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish lines?

Max Boot, 18 February 2014

This is an idea first proposed by Vice President Biden in 2006 when he was a senator. It was a non-starter then and it won’t work any better today. While the Kurdish region in the north is already almost an independent country, neither Shiites nor Sunnis are interested in splitting up the rest of Iraqâ??something that would be hard to do, in any case, because the two sects are intermingled in Baghdad and other areas. Just as the solution to Iraq’s last major bout of bloodletting, in 2003-2007, wasn’t partition, so it isn’t today.

What is? The same thing that worked during the 2007-2008 U.S.-led “surge” to bring down violence by 90 percent: the implementation of a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that included political as well as military components. What really made the surge succeed was the outreach by U.S. commanders to the Sunni tribes of Anbar Province. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, after spending the last few years victimizing Sunnis, needs to undertake similar outreach to convince the Sunnis that they will be able to prosper in the new Iraq. Otherwise, many Sunnis will tacitly or actively support Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is trying to position itself once again as the champion of this embattled minority.

Al-Qaeda’s success is evident in the fact that its fighters are openly parading through Fallujah and Ramadi. Those cities are becoming de facto part of a new al-Qaeda statelet that spans western Iraq and eastern Syria. Separating this region from the rest of Iraq will make permanent this parlous state of affairs. What this region needs is pacification not partition.

190

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
The last couple article I’ve read, albeit of dubious credibility, state that the new goal is to split Iraq into 3 separate entities: a kurdish, shiia, and sunni.

Given their millenia old differences, I don’t think anyboy thinks a unified government will work, especially with the Gulf States all rooting for their own personal teams. Forcing Maliki in favor of a unified government out won’t really do anything, except create a bigger power vacuum, and instead of the different insurgencies/factions shooting each other in the streets, they will be shooting each other in government offices. Although, you still have the EU and their influence in the UN trying to make the model work for economic reasons which time will tell, I don’t think you are dealing with the same situation in the Middle East.

I haven’t researched it much, but considering the resources spent “liberating” Iraq, the US and it’s oil industry didn’t benefit much from the Iraqi resources. Re-engineering the country will likely null and void those contracts, given the US a second shot, although this is me speculating as I’m not really all that informed of how all this played out.
[/quote]

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/could-iraq-divided-into-separate-regions-along-shiite-sunni-kurdish-lines/p32394

Could Iraq be divided into separate regions along Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish lines?

Max Boot, 18 February 2014

This is an idea first proposed by Vice President Biden in 2006 when he was a senator. It was a non-starter then and it won’t work any better today. While the Kurdish region in the north is already almost an independent country, neither Shiites nor Sunnis are interested in splitting up the rest of Iraqâ??something that would be hard to do, in any case, because the two sects are intermingled in Baghdad and other areas. Just as the solution to Iraq’s last major bout of bloodletting, in 2003-2007, wasn’t partition, so it isn’t today.

What is? The same thing that worked during the 2007-2008 U.S.-led “surge” to bring down violence by 90 percent: the implementation of a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that included political as well as military components. What really made the surge succeed was the outreach by U.S. commanders to the Sunni tribes of Anbar Province. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, after spending the last few years victimizing Sunnis, needs to undertake similar outreach to convince the Sunnis that they will be able to prosper in the new Iraq. Otherwise, many Sunnis will tacitly or actively support Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is trying to position itself once again as the champion of this embattled minority.

Al-Qaeda’s success is evident in the fact that its fighters are openly parading through Fallujah and Ramadi. Those cities are becoming de facto part of a new al-Qaeda statelet that spans western Iraq and eastern Syria. Separating this region from the rest of Iraq will make permanent this parlous state of affairs. What this region needs is pacification not partition.[/quote]

Pacification is easier said then done, especially without the emperor around keeping people in line and no one as yet has been identified who can clearly fill the role. If there was a good candidate, he would probably already be in office.

191

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@Bismark

I have a question for you. In 1960 RAND strategist Herman Kahn developed a nuclear strategy based on the Mutually Assured Destruction theory. His idea was to link a computer to a series of hydrogen bombs programmed to detonate upon the detection of an enemy launch. These bombs were designed to spread nuclear fallout across the entire planet and destroy all life on earth.

The key principle of the device was that it cannot be turned off or stopped. The theory being that the enemy would never launch a first strike knowing that this device was in place. Do you think it’s a sound strategy? You’ve said previously that Iran is a “rational actor.” Do you think such a device would constitute a good deterrent against an Iranian nuclear strike?[/quote]

This sounds so funny, given your avatar.

192

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What this region needs is pacification not partition.[/quote]

This sounds like the perfect job for an iron-fisted dictator.

193

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What this region needs is pacification not partition.[/quote]

This sounds like the perfect job for an iron-fisted dictator. [/quote]

Dick Cheney thought so in the mid-90s:

“Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west. Part of eastern Iraq, the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire.”

194

Has anybody mentioned that Dick Cheney is a piece of shit?

195

Yesterday, on the Senate floor, Harry Reid said: “Being on the wrong side of Dick Cheney is being on the right side of history.”

I’m no Reid fan, but that’s good. And there’s more truth to it than fiction.

196

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What this region needs is pacification not partition.[/quote]

This sounds like the perfect job for an iron-fisted dictator. [/quote]

Dick Cheney thought so in the mid-90s:

“Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west. Part of eastern Iraq, the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire.”

[/quote]

Then the first thing they did after they took Bagdad was dismantle the military/security apparatus and other civil security institutions and took actions that obviously conveyed the message that they were siding with one sect, not just removing the crazy dictator who was oppressing the whole country. Who could have predicted the rise in an insurgency and trouble down the road for decades to come?

197
198

[quote]theuofh wrote:

Pacification is easier said then done, especially without the emperor around keeping people in line and no one as yet has been identified who can clearly fill the role. If there was a good candidate, he would probably already be in office. [/quote]

Any candidate for “emperor” would not be on any ballot, unless it is a ballot for his “re-election” to legitimise his rule once he has seized it. And just because no strongman has seized power yet doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Here is a likely candidate for the dubiously coveted position of Caliph: Ibrahim Izzat al-Douri.

King of Clubs in the “Deck of 55” and Saddam Hussein’s right-hand man in the 1968 coup, Douri is currently the head of the outlaw Ba’ath party, and also commander of the Naqshbandi Army (“Chairman of the Supreme Command for Jihad and Liberation”), which is closely tied to ISIS.

Not saying he definitely wants the job, but what’s really to prevent him from taking it if ISIS takes Baghdad?

199

^^from the article:

“Apart from the absurd claim that the armed forces have been ?weakened? (we?re still spending over $600 billion a year on the military even with the war in Iraq behind us and Afghanistan winding down)”

The facts:

200

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^from the article:

“Apart from the absurd claim that the armed forces have been ?weakened? (we?re still spending over $600 billion a year on the military even with the war in Iraq behind us and Afghanistan winding down)”

The facts:

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/199617-republicans-blast-obama-defense-cuts[/quote]

The facts being that we are spending less than we were two years ago, but still spending a fucking enormous amount.

Anyway, far more important are these excerpts from the article:

The Cheneys offer no discussion of the disastrous decision to invade Iraq in the first place (though they still surely believe the war was a great idea, they apparently realize most Americans don’t agree). But anything that happened afterward can only be Obama’s fault. They write, “Mr. Obama had only to negotiate an agreement to leave behind some residual American forces, training and intelligence capabilities to help secure the peace. Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.”

Yes, he “had only” to do that, and everything would have turned out fine. But who was it who signed the agreement mandating the removal of all American forces from Iraq by the end of 2011? It was George W. Bush. When the time arrived, the Maliki government was determined to get all American troops out, and refused to negotiate a new agreement without putting American troops at the mercy of the Iraqi justice system – something no American president would ever have accepted.

[…]

The Cheneys’ op ed is silent on what they would do differently in Iraq today. The op-ed contains nothing even approaching a specific suggestion for what , other than to say that defeating terrorists “will require a strategy – not a fantasy. It will require sustained difficult military, intelligence and diplomatic efforts – not empty misleading rhetoric. It will require rebuilding America’s military capacity – reversing the Obama policies that have weakened our armed forces and reduced our ability to influence events around the world.”

So to recap: we need a strategy, and though they won’t tell us what that strategy might be, it should involve military, intelligence, and diplomatic efforts, and rebuilding the military.

[…]

Watch closely as Republicans troop to the TV studios in the coming days, because they’ll be saying much the same thing. They won’t bring up what a disaster the war was; they’ll hope you forget that they supported it, and they won’t mention that it was Bush who signed the agreement to remove all the troops from Iraq [MY NOTE: Sound familiar?]. They will say almost nothing about what they would do differently now, other than to say we have to be “strong” and “send the right message” to the terrorists.

When it comes to being wrong about Iraq, Dick Cheney has been in a class by himself.

[WMD portion ablated, because it will be countered by Washington Times speculation and waffling, so I am removing it for simplicity’s sake.]

It was Cheney who said: “It’s been pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta “did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.”

It was Cheney who said: “We do know, with absolute certainty, that [Saddam Hussein] is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.”

It was Cheney who said in 2005: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”

All those things, and many more, were false. There is not a single person in America – not Bill Kristol, not Paul Wolfowitz, not Don Rumsfeld, no pundit, not even President Bush himself – who has been more wrong and more shamelessly dishonest on the topic of Iraq than Dick Cheney.

And now, as the cascade of misery and death and chaos he did so much to unleash rages anew, Cheney has the unadulterated gall to come before the country and tell us that it’s all someone else’s fault, and if we would only listen to him then we could keep America safe forever. How dumb would we have to be to listen?