[quote]Severiano wrote:
I’m afraid this is the way I’m thinking about the War.
It’s painful to entertain. [/quote]
I started watching it and I wasn’t really interested. But I figured I was already halfway through and had already invested some of my time into it, so I might as well watch it to the end.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
"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.[/quote]
Can’t say I blame them.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I’m afraid this is the way I’m thinking about the War.
It’s painful to entertain. [/quote]
I started watching it and I wasn’t really interested. But I figured I was already halfway through and had already invested some of my time into it, so I might as well watch it to the end.[/quote]
It’s different. You went into the video to understand my perspective, once you got the point of the fallacy I wanted you to entertain, you wanted to stop watching… Actually there really was no point in continuing to watch once the point/ perspective was understood. But, you wouldn’t have known that unless you watched the whole thing…
But, it’s still interesting that the first example has a level of certainty attached to the end of knowing the store isn’t open… We don’t have that level of certainty with actions in Iraq is what I think the best counter argument is in this case.
I feel committed but I have no skin in the game anymore. A lot of people lost friends and family over there and may not want their deaths, efforts and the money we have spent as a country to be in vain.
If the end result that we have in mind is for the region to be stable without our presence we have to understand that the only thing we seem to be able to do is have some stability with our presence.
If the troops, and the people themselves aren’t willing to fight, then why the fuck should we die for them?
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It’s different. You went into the video to understand my perspective, once you got the point of the fallacy I wanted you to entertain, you wanted to stop watching… Actually there really was no point in continuing to watch once the point/ perspective was understood. But, you wouldn’t have known that unless you watched the whole thing…
[/quote]
My post was a joke. I was describing exactly what the video was describing.
Not really because in the example in the video the outcome is known for certain: the store is closed. The outcome in Iraq remains to be seen.
I agree with the sentiment but I think it’s important to keep perspective. It was a pretty low intensity conflict.
[quote]
If the end result that we have in mind is for the region to be stable without our presence we have to understand that the only thing we seem to be able to do is have some stability with our presence.
If the troops, and the people themselves aren’t willing to fight, then why the fuck should we die for them? [/quote]
It’s not something I’m advocating. I suggested arming and supporting the Kurds.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
When you cannot defend Obama’s actions–and lack thereof–do you not have no other thoughts than blaming Bush?[/quote]
I have no interest in defending Obama’s actions, and that is not my purpose here. What I am interested in are fact and fantasy. My thesis–I use the term euphemistically here, because there is nothing theoretical or hypothetical about anything I’ve said throughout this discussion, much unlike the open-wide-for-Rush-and-Hannity-cause-they’ve-got-a-big-'ole-spoonful-of-bullshit-for-you suggestion that a complete 2011 withdrawal of American troops from Iraq was “all Obama’s idea”–my thesis has not deviated from the following list of simple and true points:
Bush signed the SOFA, prescribing an exact date for complete withdrawal, and Obama followed the prescription.
Both Bush and Obama failed to negotiate a SOFA with provisions for a remnant American security force, even a small one (which brings us to the feet of a question nobody here wants asked: What the fuck makes anybody think we were going to get 20,000 troops when we couldn’t get 6,000? “Well Betty, I know you said you don’t want to kiss me, but I’ve got a counter-proposition for you: Howsabout some anal sex?”)
Absent such a renegotiated provision as was just described, Bush’s SOFA was the only option. No American president would leave a “peacetime” army in place without jurisdictional immunity from Iraqi courts. No American president would, in the light of day, violate indefinitely the principle obligation of an agreement with a government that’s just been set up by the United States and whose illegitimacy would spell utter disaster for American interests in the Middle East for decades to come. No American president would give Iraq the legal grounds to withdraw from its many other diplomatic and economic agreements with the United States. And, last but most certainly not least, the first thing they teach in diplomacy 101 is that foreign agreements are like Mr. Donne’s continent: A clod washed away here and the whole operation is the less for it.
Obama’s “I ended the Iraq War” rhetoric has been nothing more than political twaddle all along, and a single link to a single document has, all this time, sufficed as evidence of such. Which is why you’ve never caught me saying “Obama ended the Iraq War,” and which is why I agreed with good old Push a short while back when he told me that Bush gets all the credit for the withdrawal from Iraq.
[quote]
Please note: krauthammer acknowledges the event at the outset.[/quote]
As we all have surely come to expect from the old grifting shill, Krauthammer, at fatal cost to his own argument, “acknowledges” (and then, of course, “sets aside”) the man more responsible for Iraq’s current situation than anyone else will ever dream of being. All to focus, again, on the guy with the wrong letter next to his name.
[quote]
For all its “mistakes,” Bush’s team strategy left Iraq free of the Al Qaeda in Iraq[/quote]
“For all his ‘mistakes,’ my client did extinguish his wife after having doused her with petrol and tossed a lit cigar down her blouse.”
[quote]
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.[/quote]
This would be a fine point if I had ever said anything like what you’re claiming here, but alas.
Indeed, I even made explicit mention of the fact that the Iraqis have claimed, on more than one occasion, that Obama has stepped across the SOFA’s line.
However, there are flirtations with coworkers and then there is fucking your wife’s sister. Regarding the dates of withdrawal, the SOFA was indeed inviolable unless renegotiated.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
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.
“I’m quoting an article that says that some experts disagree with me and some experts agree with me, but if I embolden the part about the experts who agree with me, it’ll be like I win!”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[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?[/quote]
With this again.
Why do we pretend?
Do we have to do this again? Distinguish between the different WMD claims, talk about the shiny tubes in the pretty pictures, parse Powell’s nonsense for the separate accusations and their relative imports to the larger case? Why is it that when the topic of Iraq comes up, even the most detail-oriented begin pretending they don’t know the details?
I thought that the “surge worked” in 2007 and ended the violence and brought peace to Iraq. Its 2014 now. So this must be something new and totally different that the U.S. is not responsible for fixing because we won and restored order and democracy to Iraq. Unless the surge didn’t actually “work” to end violence and bring peace to Iraq.
In my estimation, Iraq’s lungs were destroyed in phases: (1) when the U.S. invaded; (2) when the U.S. disbanded the army; and then when (3) the U.S. sided with primarily one sect over another and allowed a purge. The surge was like putting Iraq on an iron lung to save it from a total collapse. The surge didn’t fix the actual lungs; take away the iron lung–i.e. significant u.s. troops–and the country will still inevitably collapse. Now, or 10 years from now.
So, what is the political solution now? How long are we supposed to prop that county up with 10-20,000 troops and kick the can down the road? Forever? Troops forever isn’t a fucking solution, it is an admission of defeat and an admission the county is unfixable.
My suggestion is appoint Cheney emperor and see how he does; he seems to have all the answers. Let him command some of his private contractors and arm them to the teeth to give him a fighting chance of restoring order. I suspect he might actually do fine as he’s likely to be more ruthless and brutal than Hussain ever thought of being. If he finds Iraq’s WMD stores, he can use them to restore order.
Or they will just tear him to pieces after they cut off his head, which, while not restoring order, would at least seem like some small bit of justice was done.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
The surge didn’t fix the actual lungs; take away the iron lung–i.e. significant u.s. troops–and the country will still inevitably collapse. Now, or 10 years from now.
[/quote]
But don’t you dare mention the spear-throwing Cro-Magnon savages who poked craters in the lung in the first place! This is all on the doctors for not having yet invented heal-all pills!
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
When you cannot defend Obama’s actions–and lack thereof–do you not have no other thoughts than blaming Bush?[/quote]
I have no interest in defending Obama’s actions…
(all sorts of silliness doing just that, and then…)
Regarding the dates of withdrawal, the SOFA was indeed inviolable unless renegotiated.
[/quote]
But isn’t that the issue? Bush did what he could to leave Iraq with as few Americans, a “stable” government (Obama’s words,not mine). It was left to Obama to negotiate, for 3 1/2 years, through the SFA a way to prevent those events we are now witnessing. Obama did not even make an effort until 3 months before the SOFA deadline. And now–in the face of the SOFA that you find so absolutely binding–he acted fecklessly, with weak and ineffective support, and can not negotiate with Maliki, let alone his own Administration.
“Unless renegotiated.” Your words. Obama’s disastrous failure.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
When you cannot defend Obama’s actions–and lack thereof–do you not have no other thoughts than blaming Bush?[/quote]
I have no interest in defending Obama’s actions…
(all sorts of silliness doing just that, and then…)
Regarding the dates of withdrawal, the SOFA was indeed inviolable unless renegotiated.
[/quote]
But isn’t that the issue? Bush did what he could…
[/quote]
Did he?
It was as incumbent upon Bush as on Obama to secure a SOFA which prescribing a remnant security force of U.S. troops. Yes?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
I thought that the “surge worked” in 2007 and ended the violence and brought peace to Iraq. Its 2014 now. So this must be something new and totally different that the U.S. is not responsible for fixing because we won and restored order and democracy to Iraq. Unless the surge didn’t actually “work” to end violence and bring peace to Iraq.[/quote]
Or unless Obama squandered an opportunity, and threw away advantage, as he has done so many times.[quote]
…–and the country will still inevitably collapse. Now, or 10 years from now.
So, what is the political solution now? How long are we supposed to prop that county up with 10-20,000 troops and kick the can down the road? Forever? Troops forever isn’t a fucking solution, it is an admission of defeat and an admission the county is unfixable.
… [/quote]
Like Japan, Okinawa, Korea, Germany, Italy, Spain, Philipines (yes, they are asking American military to return)…
Those places are “fixed,” so by your logic they should not be there. I agree they should not be there, but not by your logic.
Maliki and Obama could have negotiated a more secure situation in 2011.
The idea that only a brutal dictator can save a country—an abreaction to the result of disastrous policies of Maliki and Obama–is particularly creepy, even when said in jest. When the choice is unity of a country or gassing of its civilians (oh yes Saddam did have and use WMDs), the failure lies with those responsible for securing its peace: in this case, Maliki and Obama.
“…Obama did not even make an effort until 3 months before the SOFA deadline…”
Doc:
From all your post; I know you know better than this.
Negotiations…and very intense ones…have been ongoing with al-Maliki and his Government…on all kinds of issues; including (but not limited to) the eventual withdrawal of U.S. Troops.
Mufasa
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
When you cannot defend Obama’s actions–and lack thereof–do you not have no other thoughts than blaming Bush?[/quote]
I have no interest in defending Obama’s actions…
(all sorts of silliness doing just that, and then…)
Regarding the dates of withdrawal, the SOFA was indeed inviolable unless renegotiated.
[/quote]
But isn’t that the issue? Bush did what he could…
[/quote]
Did he?
It was as incumbent upon Bush as on Obama to secure a SOFA which prescribing a remnant security force of U.S. troops. Yes?[/quote]
Don’t you get it?
There was a standing Strategic Forces Agreement in place which was to be used by the next president–in this case, Obama–to secure the peace. Obama failed to do so. His delayed (by three years!) and puny efforts to do so were laughable, were the outcome not so tragic.
But Blame Bush. Okay, okay. Bush put estrogen in Obama’s Wheaties. That is the only way The Savior could have failed in his mission. Or Bush forced Obama to play golf and raise funds for his next election. Or…just Blame Bush.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Obama did not even make an effort until 3 months before the SOFA deadline…”
Doc:
From all your post; I know you know better than this.
Negotiations…and very intense ones…have been ongoing with al-Maliki and his Government…on all kinds of issues; including (but not limited to) the eventual withdrawal of U.S. Troops.
Mufasa[/quote]
I invite you to read the WSJ opinions I posted.
Bush was on the phone weekly with Maliki during the SOFA negotiations.
Obama contacted him once, then rarely, and did not take the SFA question seriously.
I’ll post this again (with some additions/changes):
This is the problem that I have with what you are suggesting should have been done, Doc.
Even at the height of our military engagement and involvement in Iraq; all we were doing was a) keeping LARGE numbers of people apart whom have wanted to exterminate each other for going on 1,400 years (there were still bombings, executions, kidnappings, etc.) and b) placing our people in the middle of the conflict. “The Surge” just pushed them further apart.
The idea of “stabilization” simply never was, and most likely never will be, in this area…and CERTAINLY not by Military Force.
IF the idea is somehow we should have kept troops and forces in place to “stabilize” Iraq; my feeling is that it would have required two things (IMO):
A never-ending presence and Trillions upon Trillions of more dollars and
A willingness to accept daily flights of planes filled with flag-draped coffins.
Even if we accept those two things; “stabilization” in Iraq amounts to no more that an illusion.
Post WW-II Japan and Germany are poor examples to use in that 1) both were reduced to smoldering rubble and 2) while there may have been a “will” for some in those Countries to fight (there were scattered incidents of post-war occupying troops being killed); the capacity to continue to wage all-out War was eliminated.
This is not NEARLY the case in Iraq and/or Syria.
Mufasa
“…But Blame Bush. Okay, okay. Bush put estrogen in Obama’s Wheaties. That is the only way The Savior could have failed in his mission. Or Bush forced Obama to play golf and raise funds for his next election. Or…just Blame Bush…”
Got it. (But disappointing to read…)
Mufasa
"The US suffered a major diplomatic and military rebuff on Friday when Iraq finally rejected its pleas to maintain bases in the country beyond this year.
Barack Obama announced at a White House press conference that all American troops will leave Iraq by the end of December, a decision forced by the final collapse of lengthy talks between the US and the Iraqi government on the issue.
[…]
One of the sticking points in the negotiations with Iraq was a US demand that American forces remaining in the country after December would enjoy the same immunity from prosecution as they do now. The Iraqi government, conscious of public anger over many controversial incidents involving US troops and defense contractors over the last decade, refused.
The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis."
And on this “six months” nonsense that Krauthammer is trying to peddle: The Bush administration’s SOFA negotiations lasted 9 months in earnest and amounted to no troop commitment and no jurisdictional immunity for U.S. forces beyond December 2011. That was the state of things beyond 2008. Then comes Obama’s talks at that precise sticking point, with no progress. The suggestion that a few more months’ worth of talking about it would have changed the simple political calculations involved in Maliki’s refusal is empty guesswork at best and shameless partisan waffling at worst. Still, I lay the blame for Obama’s failure to negotiate a good deal at his feet–and I lay the same blame for the same failure at Bush’s feet, where it is sharply clear that it equally belongs. Neither of them succeeded in fixing the clusterfuck that Bush conferred upon the American people in 2003.
The important thing to remember about diplomacy is that outcomes are not in our hands in the way that the average PWI poster seems to believe that they are. Bush tried to negotiate with the shitty leader he installed, and failed. Obama tried to negotiate with the shitty Bush had installed, and failed. If SMH or Dr. S had tried, would either of them have succeeded? Perhaps. Perhaps not. IR is more rigid and constrained endeavor than Joe Six Pack guesses.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
When you cannot defend Obama’s actions–and lack thereof–do you not have no other thoughts than blaming Bush?[/quote]
I have no interest in defending Obama’s actions…
(all sorts of silliness doing just that, and then…)
Regarding the dates of withdrawal, the SOFA was indeed inviolable unless renegotiated.
[/quote]
But isn’t that the issue? Bush did what he could…
[/quote]
Did he?
It was as incumbent upon Bush as on Obama to secure a SOFA which prescribing a remnant security force of U.S. troops. Yes?[/quote]
Don’t you get it?
There was a standing Strategic Forces Agreement in place…
[/quote]
Which Bush had wanted to include remnant security forces, which he failed to secure.
So, Bush starts everything in 2003. Then, in 2008, fails to get what he wants. Kicks the can to the next guy. The next guy comes along. Fails to get what he wants. Yes?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…But Blame Bush. Okay, okay. Bush put estrogen in Obama’s Wheaties. That is the only way The Savior could have failed in his mission. Or Bush forced Obama to play golf and raise funds for his next election. Or…just Blame Bush…”
Got it. (But disappointing to read…)
Mufasa [/quote]
Agreed.