[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’ll just leave at this: A dangerous problem which needs to be dealt with is a war-torn Iraq collapsing under the weight of a web of radical terrorism. That’s a dangerous problem, and it exists because of one abject failure of a president and the piece of shit he brought with him into the White House.[/quote]
I agree that Obama is an abject failure but I think you’re being a bit harsh on poor old Joe Biden. He may be a halfwit but I wouldn’t say he’s a “piece of shit.”
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Which makes Bush responsible for the terrible costs incurred to defeat the 2003-09 jihadist war engendered by his invasion. We can debate forever whether those costs were worth it, but…[/quote]
Yes, let’s set aside the guy who literally made all of this possible in a single clause. That way, we can focus on the guy who has the wrong letter next to his name.
The Max Boot article referenced above^^
10/31/2011
smh, please note:
You have relied on a meticulous reading of the SOFA, which was the default agreement in the absence of further negotiations over the ensuing 3 years. There was also a standing agreement, the Strategic Framework Agreement:
‘There is still a possibility for close U.S.-Iraqi military cooperation under the existing Strategic Framework Agreement. This could authorize joint exercises between the two countries and even the presence of a small U.S. Special Operations contingent in Iraq. But it is no substitute for the kind of robust U.S. military presence that would be needed to bolster Iraq’s nascent democracy and counter interference from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional players that don’t have Iraq’s best interests at heart.’
–Max Boot.
If Obama, in late 2011, was making feeble overtures to keep troops in Iraq, was it in violation of an inviolable SOFA? No. (Only his most partisan supporters are going to forget this SFA and say the SOFA was a complete, end-of-story treaty. Period. Exclamation point. Obama would never reneg on that SOFA until he tried to, feebly.)
Was he squandering an opportunity? In retrospect, very possibly. But at the time, he was getting set to run for President, on a platform that he–yes he–ended the Iraq War.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Which makes Bush responsible for the terrible costs incurred to defeat the 2003-09 jihadist war engendered by his invasion. We can debate forever whether those costs were worth it, but…[/quote]
Yes, let’s set aside the guy who literally made all of this possible in a single clause. That way, we can focus on the guy who has the wrong letter next to his name.[/quote]
And by this you disqualify all the facts and opinions in the piece?
Sorry…fail.
The question at hand, my dear smh, is not Bush, but what Mr. Obama could have done since 2008 to alter the current dismal situation.
On October 21, 2011, it became clear that the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq would not be extended. Within hours, the White House issued a gleeful press release: “So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”
The statement added that Obama and Prime Minister al-Maliki “are in full agreement about how to move forward,” suggesting that the Obama administration had no intention of opposing the decision of the al-Maliki government.
DrSkeptix, interesting Obama’s administration also took down 2 of the generals responsible for the stabilization of Iraq: Petraeus and McChrystal.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
DrSkeptix, interesting Obama’s administration also took down 2 of the generals responsible for the stabilization of Iraq: Petraeus and McChrystal.[/quote]
“The graveyards are full of indispensable men.”(Charles de Gaulle)
Its just a shame when so many good men are made dispensable.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Now we are back to Halliburton. Yes the money is irrelevant. Halliburton is only providing a service that they were hired to do. If there is a problem with Halliburton providing that service you need to explain why. Then you need to explain why it’s not Clinton’s fault for hiring a civilian contractor to handle a task that has always been handled by the military and for obvious reasons.
[/quote]
Halliburton is one company in a very large government contracting business. Everything is contracted out, and I mean everything.
Remember the Abu Ghraib fiasco, where a lot of prisoners were getting tortured, well a lot of that was done by CACI contractors on contract. The US DoD/IC is majority contractors, the infrastructure and supports contracts are also contracted out.
If there is military in the room, there is a significant chance that they will be outnumbered by contractors, at least at some point during the day.
Even actual warfighting, think Blackwater or whatever it is called now, which opened up the model to probably 100 other companies who now are in the private security business, working side-by-side US soldiers.
There’s documentaries on Netflix on this where soldiers doing support tasks and not actual fighting, half joking about getting fat, getting booted out, then coming back as contractors making $100k+ plus per year tax free. DoD contractors usually charge about double the employee salary to the government, to cover operating costs and profit.
The money is not irrelevant as Halliburton the way the contracts are setup incentivize running as much money as possible through the contracts. Therefore, you scrap parts that don’t need scrapping, over build, and what not to maximize profit.
DoD accounting is a mess as it is, now complicated by being in the middle of a war zone.
War really is a racket and the whole “military/industrial” complex is a bit nervous now as they know the fat times are ending with the draw down, and the defense budget is getting cut.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
DrSkeptix, interesting Obama’s administration also took down 2 of the generals responsible for the stabilization of Iraq: Petraeus and McChrystal.[/quote]
Petraeus took himself down for fooling around with a grizzled socialite and getting caught.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Which makes Bush responsible for the terrible costs incurred to defeat the 2003-09 jihadist war engendered by his invasion. We can debate forever whether those costs were worth it, but…[/quote]
Yes, let’s set aside the guy who literally made all of this possible in a single clause. That way, we can focus on the guy who has the wrong letter next to his name.[/quote]
Wasn’t muslim extremism really the true cause of the war? Do you hold Blair responsible at all or just the guy with an “R” after his name?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Which makes Bush responsible for the terrible costs incurred to defeat the 2003-09 jihadist war engendered by his invasion. We can debate forever whether those costs were worth it, but…[/quote]
Yes, let’s set aside the guy who literally made all of this possible in a single clause. That way, we can focus on the guy who has the wrong letter next to his name.[/quote]
Wasn’t muslim extremism really the true cause of the war? Do you hold Blair responsible at all or just the guy with an “R” after his name?
[/quote]
It was all Bush. And that super villain Cheney. I’m pretty sure Nixon had a hand in it too.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
On October 21, 2011, it became clear that the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq would not be extended. Within hours, the White House issued a gleeful press release: “So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”
The statement added that Obama and Prime Minister al-Maliki “are in full agreement about how to move forward,” suggesting that the Obama administration had no intention of opposing the decision of the al-Maliki government.[/quote]
Because spin and rhetoric and presidential press conferences–these are the things we use to build intelligent and clear-eyed understanding of reality, yes?
I had no idea that you had so much trust in Mr. Obama.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Which makes Bush responsible for the terrible costs incurred to defeat the 2003-09 jihadist war engendered by his invasion. We can debate forever whether those costs were worth it, but…[/quote]
Yes, let’s set aside the guy who literally made all of this possible in a single clause. That way, we can focus on the guy who has the wrong letter next to his name.[/quote]
Wasn’t muslim extremism really the true cause of the war?[/quote]
No.
Yes.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
DrSkeptix, interesting Obama’s administration also took down 2 of the generals responsible for the stabilization of Iraq: Petraeus and McChrystal.[/quote]
Petraeus took himself down for fooling around with a grizzled socialite and getting caught. [/quote]
What’s it matter who he’s fooling around with given his track record in Iraq. If they wanted to they could have covered it up but chose not to. Petraeus and McChrystal were successful generals not reality TV stars but that’s how they went down. Shame.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Which makes Bush responsible for the terrible costs incurred to defeat the 2003-09 jihadist war engendered by his invasion. We can debate forever whether those costs were worth it, but…[/quote]
Yes, let’s set aside the guy who literally made all of this possible in a single clause. That way, we can focus on the guy who has the wrong letter next to his name.[/quote]
And by this you disqualify all the facts and opinions in the piece?
Sorry…fail.
The question at hand, my dear smh, is not Bush, but what Mr. Obama could have done since 2008 to alter the current dismal situation.
[/quote]
Ah good doctor, I had forgotten: History began in January 2009.
Which is a snarky way of saying, Why under any circumstances would your question be the question at hand? What of this question: What could Mr. Bush–the same Mr. Bush who invaded Iraq, deposed its dictator, disbanded its army, and then signed a Status of Forces Agreement whose central prescription was that all U.S. forces must leave Iraqi territory by December 31, 2011-- what could he have done to alter the current dismal situation. Or another question: To what extent does the current dismal situation owe an existential debt to Mr. Bush and his “ideas.” Or: Which is the blunder more deserving of an intelligent man’s condemnation: the starting of a ludicrously stupid war on grounds dripping with poor intelligence and outright mendacity, which was followed by the mishandling of a decade-long occupation/sectarian civil war wherein trillions of American (or are they Chinese?) dollars, thousands of American lives, and scores of thousands of Iraqi lives were piled together and ground to meat and ash, which in turn was followed by the signature of a promise to completely withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of 2011; or “but Obama didn’t negotiate well!”
As for the specific claims made in the article, I will be back tomorrow!
But I will say this: I would like to get a hold of this magical wand that has the power to cut the causal chain of history and absolve of their tar-black guilt all historical figures whose contributions happened to have transpired prior to the cut.
It could come in handy in the guerrilla war that is a young man’s love life.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But I will say this: I would like to get a hold of this magical wand that has the power to cut the causal chain of history and absolve of their tar-black guilt all historical figures whose contributions happened to have transpired prior to the cut.
It could come in handy in the guerrilla war that is a young man’s love life.[/quote]
Well, good luck with all that.
When you cannot defend Obama’s actions–and lack thereof–do you not have no other thoughts than blaming Bush? Unto Eternity? Its too easy, too evasive, and neglects responsibility. I do not deny Bush’s responsibility for events up to Jan 20, 2009–not even The Surge, which Obama memorable thought would be a total failure. Now, will you not acknowledge Obama’s responsibility for events after that date?
Please note: Krauthammer acknowledges the event at the outset. For all its “mistakes,” Bush’s team strategy left Iraq free of the Al Qaeda in Iraq, and as Obama and Biden themselves proclaimed, a “stable” government in Iraq.
Now what did Obama do with that advantage, an advantage for which he did not have to work or negotiate?
Well, let me do your homework for you:
"WASHINGTONâ??Amid growing signs of instability in Iraq, President Barack Obama authorized a secret plan late last year to aid Iraqi troops in their fight against Sunni extremists by sharing intelligence on the militants’ desert encampments, but devoted only a handful of U.S. specialists to the task.
"So few aircraft were dedicated to the program, which also faced restrictions by the Iraqis, that U.S. surveillance flights usually took place just once a month, said current and former U.S. officials briefed on the program.
“Instead of providing Iraqis with real-time drone feeds and intercepted communications from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, the militant group that has overrun parts of Iraq, U.S. intelligence specialists typically gave their Iraqi counterparts limited photographic images, reflecting U.S. concerns that more sensitive data would end up in Iranian hands, these officials said.
Political and security sensitivities for leaders in both countries led the U.S. move cautiously to secretly set up the so-called fusion intelligence center in Baghdad. But Mr. Obama’s announcement Thursday that the U.S. will deploy up to 300 military advisers and set up two joint operations centers shows the extent to which U.S. and Iraqi leaders are racing to catch up to an ISIS threat they had already identified but were slow to counter.”
Oh, my! This flies in the face of your principle contention that the SOFA is inviolable, immutable and respected in every jot and tiddle by Mr. Obama.
And it pointedly shows Mr Obama’s fecklessness: the tepid response, furtive actions, inability to control–or negotiate with–not only Maliki, but his own Administration and bureaucracy.
"…Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates favored leaving 16,000 troops to train the Iraqi forces, prepare them to carry out counterterrorism missions, protect Iraqi airspace, tamp down Arab and Kurdish tensions and to maintain American influence…
Mr. Obama overruled Admiral Mullen…
…the president emphasized that any agreement would need to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament. But not everybody in the American camp agreed with this stipulation.
Brett H. McGurk, a former Bush administration aide whom the Obama administration had asked to return to Baghdad to help with the talks, thought that a bruising parliamentary battle could be avoided by working out an understanding under an existing umbrella agreement on economic and security cooperation - an approach Mr. Maliki himself suggested several times…
On Aug. 13, Mr. Obama…ruled out the 10,000 troop option and a smaller 7,000 variant. The talks would proceed but the size of the force the United States might keep was shrunk: the new goal would be a continuous presence of about 3,500 troops, a rotating force of up to 1,500 and half a dozen F-16’s.
Some experts say that given the Iraqis’ concerns about sovereignty, and Iranian pressure, the politicians in Baghdad were simply not prepared to make the hard decisions that were needed to secure parliamentary approval. Others say the Iraqis sensed the Americans? ambivalence and were being asked to make unpopular political decisions for a modest military benefit.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…Which is the blunder more deserving of an intelligent man’s condemnation: the starting of a ludicrously stupid war on grounds dripping with poor intelligence and outright mendacity…[/quote]
“The jihadist group bringing terror to Iraq overran a Saddam Hussein chemical weapons complex Thursday, gaining access to disused stores of hundreds of tons of potentially deadly poisons including mustard gas and sarin…”
That’s funny. I thought Saddam didn’t have any WMDs? I thought it was a neocon conspiracy?
I’m afraid this is the way I’m thinking about the War.
It’s painful to entertain.