Bagdad Falling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I invite you to read the WSJ opinions I posted.
[/quote]

As we should all expect from Krauthammer, especially on the subject of Iraq, his “opinion” is shameless bullshit.

Let’s see (Quotations I’m refuting are from Krauthammer’s piece):

[quote]
[Obama’s] excuse was his inability to get immunity for U.S. soldiers. Nonsense. Bush had worked out a compromise in his 2008 SOFA, as we have done with allies everywhere.[/quote]

No. Because he could not secure immunity for U.S. troops, Bush signed his name to the flat prescription that “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” This is not a compromise. This is not a partial victory in the arena of jurisdictional immunity. Krauthammer is full of shit as always.

As for anything being an “excuse”:

“Iraq’s prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.
The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans’ terms.”

[quote]
[Obama] offered to leave about 3,000 to 5,000 troops, a ridiculous number. U.S. commanders said they needed nearly 20,000.[/quote]

He began with the suggestion of 10,000 troops, and Maliki refused. Again, Krauthammer stumbles over his own shameless partisanship, and an extremely intelligent observer somehow falls for it.

[quote]
[Obama] had three years to negotiate a deal and didn�¢??t even begin talks until a few months before the deadline period.[/quote]

What is a “few” months? Do you know? Why isn’t the old Hammer being specific here? Could it be because the 2011 negotiations were only a little shorter than the 2008 negotiations, and there was less to talk about, since they began at 2008’s sticking point?

So, what we have here is a man who is peddling mush.

302

In sum:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

  1. Bush starts everything in 2003.

  2. Then, in 2008, Bush fails to get what he wants re: troop immunity and a remnant security force. Kicks the can to the next guy.

  3. The next guy comes along. Fails to get what he wants re: troop immunity and a remnant security force.
    [/quote]

And we’re pretending that [3] is the only thing that ever happened? That it’s [u]remotely close[/u] to the biggest fuck-up on that list? That “the question at hand” is what Obama could have done to fix Bush’s war which Bush started on bad intelligence and which Bush couldn’t fix himself in 2008 after nine months of negotiations collapsed into the Maliki victory which read that all U.S. forces must leave Iraqi territory by December 31, 2011?

Come now.

303

[quote]Krauthammer:
[Obama] had three years to negotiate a deal and didn’t even begin talks until a few months before the deadline period.[/quote]

Apparently, a “few months” is seven months in Krauthammer-speak, given that Obama video-conferenced Maliki on the subject of U.S. troop presence and Iraqi parliament approval on June 2, 2011. (June 2-December 31, which is when a decision had to be made by=7 months.)

And how long did George Bush’s valiant negotiations last?

From the AFP in January 2008:

The SOFA was first signed November 2008. If Gates’ admission of inactivity was no longer correct the month after he insisted that barely any work had been done–and this is a generous guess on my part–then the actual substance of Bush’s negotiations lasted 9 1/4 months.

So, Bush works for 9 months [b]from scratch[/b] and fails to secure a remnant U.S. force. Obama then works for 7 months [b]beginning at Bush’s sticking point[/b] and, similarly, fails to secure a remnant U.S. force. But in Krauthammer’s encyclopedia of rectal excavations, we can set everything Bush did aside and focus on the Obama’s administration’s “few months” of negotiation.

Then again, all of this is par for the course when you’re talking about a shill like Charlie.

304

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So, Bush works for 9 months [b]from scratch[/b] and fails to secure a remnant U.S. force. Obama then works for 7 months [b]beginning at Bush’s sticking point[/b] and, similarly, fails to secure a remnant U.S. force…
[/quote]

You are not making sense.
If this is your defense, that after his administration worked for 2 years after the surge, including 9 months personally (calling Maliki weekly), and Obama could not be bothered for the period of 3 years (2009 to 2011), leaving personal involvement to 6 weeks (10/21 to Novemeber)…how is that not indicative of Obama’s spectacular failure?

A minor point to be sure, since everything will be Bush’s fault. Even Krauthammer’s accuracy and clarity is Bush’s fault, and your feeble dependence on the ad hominem defense (accurately termed here) must be Bush’s fault and not your own.

Like I said, good luck with all that, and good luck with the next 2 1/2 years of the President’s administration and policies because…it is all Bush’s fault.

305

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
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):

  1. A never-ending presence and Trillions upon Trillions of more dollars and

  2. 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 [/quote]

Agreed.

I was sarcastically qualifying jack’s assertion. You point out correctly the differences, differences which would have to be addressed to achieve any degree of “success” in that sand pit.

And it didn’t happen. Bush is responsible before 2008 and Obama is responsible after 2009. What could be more clear?

306

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

My great regret is to have disappointed my friends.

307

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

So, Bush works for 9 months [b]from scratch[/b] and fails to secure a remnant U.S. force. Obama then works for 7 months [b]beginning at Bush’s sticking point[/b] and, similarly, fails to secure a remnant U.S. force…
[/quote]

You are not making sense.
If this is your defense, that after his administration worked for 2 years after the surge, including 9 months personally (calling Maliki weekly)[/quote]

No no no.

Not two years, not “including” nine months. I posted Gates’ words. Nine months of negotiations at the most.

Nine vs. Seven, with the very important caveat that the seven began at the nine’s sticking point. And some personal phone calls by Bush…[b]still achieved exactly the same result as was achieved by Obama[/b].

More importantly, you are now incorrectly implying that I am defending Obama in order to portray him in some kind of positive light. That is not what is happening here. I came into this thread in order to correct a factual inaccuracy, which I did. Because the usual suspects jumped in in order to try to absolve Bush of any blame (any blame in his war, his SOFA, his failure to negotiate a remnant security contingent), I am now pushing back against your fantastical narrative wherein Bush’s name is verboten.

On the topic of Krauthammer, I believe I did a pretty bang-up job of showing him to be, as ever, a tired old hack peddling bullshit. “A few months” = seven (to Bush’s nine); the 10,000 troops pushed for in July are ignored in favor of the much worse-looking smaller number later discussed; Bush won a “compromise” on immunity by signing a document which granted no jurisdictional immunity to U.S. forces upon withdrawal and promised that all American troops would pack up and leave in December 2011.

308

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

My great regret is to have disappointed my friends.[/quote]

Good doctor, I am disappointed in your arguments, as you are surely disappointed in mine (otherwise, where would the fun be?). But there is no disappointment here in each other.

309

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

And it didn’t happen. Bush is responsible before 2008 and Obama is responsible after 2009. What could be more clear?[/quote]

YES!

Exactly.

But here is the thing: The withdrawal from Iraq owes its existence to things which happened both before and after 2009. The invasion itself preceded 2009, first SOFA preceded 2009. The manner and timing of the withdrawal are both existentially contingent upon those two pre-2009 events.

Furthermore, I have a hard time seeing two people fail to do exactly the same thing and, for God knows what reason, criticizing only one of them for it.

310

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

And it didn’t happen. Bush is responsible before 2008 and Obama is responsible after 2009. What could be more clear?[/quote]

YES!

Exactly.

But here is the thing: The withdrawal from Iraq owes its existence to things which happened both before and after 2009. The invasion itself preceded 2009, first SOFA preceded 2009. The manner and timing of the withdrawal are both existentially contingent upon those two pre-2009 events.

Furthermore, I have a hard time seeing two people fail to do exactly the same thing and, for God knows what reason, criticizing only one of them for it.[/quote]

Yes
You speak of causes and I agree with you. (There is no need to argue a conceded history.)
I speak of responsibility for policy, and either you demur, or you believe cause trumps responsibility for action or inaction.
See? What could be more clear?

311

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Yes
You speak of causes and I agree with you. (There is no need to argue a conceded history.)
I speak of responsibility for policy, and either you demur, or you believe cause trumps responsibility for action or inaction.
See? What could be more clear?[/quote]

No, I believe cause determines responsibility, because it does. I am only responsible for the failures and problems that I cause–which is why I don’t apologize to people when other people step on their toes, and I don’t turn myself in to the authorities when other people commit murder in my neighborhood.

As for what could be more clear, I don’t know that clarity is PWI’s strong suit on the subject of Bush and Iraq. Actually, I shouldn’t speak in euphemisms: I do know that clarity is most definitely not PWI’s strong suit on the subject of Bush and Iraq. But I would like to make one thing clear: I am not singing Obama’s praises. I am not absolving Obama of guilt. Obama’s failure ([b]which was unarguably and uncontroversially the same failure as experienced by Bush[/b]) has been one of my three or four central arguments throughout the course of this debate.

What I am doing is setting things right. This nonsense about the complete withdrawal having been entirely Obama’s baby, Obama’s idea all along, boy oh boy did it blow up in Obama’s face–it’s nonsense. Krauthammer’s nonsense about Bush having “won” a “compromise” re: jurisdictional immunity with the SOFA–it’s nonsense (in fact, it’s so arrantly and stupidly wrong that I am frankly surprised it made it to print, even with the caveat that it came from Krauthammer and was thus expected to be heavy on spin and piffle).

312

I credit Obama AND Bush with the withdrawal. And that’s not a condemnation of either.

Bush though, gets the blame. If you know what I mean.

313

And I hate feeling like I’m defending a President whose legacy includes making EWTN (EWTN of all things!) have to appeal a court decision regarding a contraceptive healthcare mandate…

In the US of A?!

314

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And I hate feeling like I’m defending a President whose legacy includes making EWTN (EWTN of all things!) have to appeal a court decision regarding a contraceptive healthcare mandate…

In the US of A?![/quote]

I’m with you there.

315

I am off to enjoy this beautiful day. I will leave with a re-quote, this being what I think is the biggest problem exhibited by the pro-Bush contingent that came crashing in to defend the worst president of my lifetime:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Furthermore, I have a hard time seeing two people fail to do exactly the same thing and, for God knows what reason, criticizing only one of them for it.[/quote]

If you’re guilty of this, your criticisms are best launched into the mirror.

316

And that’s another thing, SMH, Iraq has drained the right of political capital. And badly marred the label “conservatism.”

Misplacing blame is delaying the great big “we’re sorry, we were wrong on Iraq” the right (in general) needs to do.

Even most republican voters want nothing more to do with Iraq. America doesn’t want Iraq. And we do want it and then Iran, Russia, or whatever next. The McCain/Hawk wing has colored the entire right side of the political spectrum as the indefinite war faction. The “I’ll kick more ass than the other Republican nominee” party. So, everything else, about any other issue, is auto tuned out.

Our ability to even get a hearing from the public ('specially independents and undecideds) on domestic economic/social issues has been severely compromised. And those issues are probably next to impossible for the right to win these days, anyways. Now run candidates who sound like they’re eager to get back to Iraq, while finding a new target for military action.

EWTN, a Catholic news and programming television network, has been told by a court decision (being appealed) that it must provide contraception coverage…In the United States of America…

Your/our vision of the country is vanishing. It is becoming hopelessly Progressive. We are increasingly becoming noisy, but otherwise ineffective spectators. You/we had better start focusing, if it isn’t already too late to make our case. And, I’d say it probably is already too late.

Fix us, first. The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites will have to figure it out.

317

Troop stations and movements are NOT like the economy. With the economy, a former president can do shit that will fuck a sitting president. But with the military, the president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His finger is on the big red button. He tells the troops what to do, where to go, who to kill and when to come home. Emphasis on the “when to come home” part. If Obama wasn’t such a pussy and an ignorant moron, perhaps he would have made an executive decision to keep our forces in place until the job was done (you know, so we wouldn’t have to go back in and RE-CAPTURE cities we’ve already bled and died for). He COULD have taken current information and used that data to make a proper adjustment to HIS foreign policy. He could have told Maliki to fuck off, he’s lucky to have a job and we’ll be there until his government get’s their shit together. Instead, he got his wittle feewings hurt and took his toys and went home, “I’ll show that Maliki - he’ll be begging for me to come back, and when he does, I won’t come”. Way to think it through. He’d rather cut off OUR nose to spite OUR face because he has the ego of child. He doesn’t want to pay the political price for doing what needs to be done (even though he isn’t running for election). What a piece of shit.

Or we could just let ISIS turn Iraq and Syria turn into the most extreme, well funded terrorist breeding ground the world has ever seen… I mean that could NEVER affect US - it’s all the way over THERE… Cuz that’s what’s happening on his watch.

We SAW these terrorists MARCHING/driving on the road toward cities! Did we bomb them? Nope… Did we “draw a red line”? Nope… (he’s skeeerd to do that, now). Did we do ANYTHING to prevent these extremists from getting access to more money and weapons than they’ve ever had and that will probably be used against us in the near future? Nope… Cuz he’s a muslim -loving, communist pussy.

318

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Troop stations and movements are NOT like the economy. With the economy, a former president can do shit that will fuck a sitting president. But with the military, the president is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. His finger is on the big red button. He tells the troops what to do, where to go, who to kill and when to come home. Emphasis on the “when to come home” part. If Obama wasn’t such a pussy and an ignorant moron, perhaps he would have made an executive decision to keep our forces in place until the job was done (you know, so we wouldn’t have to go back in and RE-CAPTURE cities we’ve already bled and died for). He COULD have taken current information and used that data to make a proper adjustment to HIS foreign policy. He could have told Maliki to fuck off, he’s lucky to have a job and we’ll be there until his government get’s their shit together. Instead, he got his wittle feewings hurt and took his toys and went home, “I’ll show that Maliki - he’ll be begging for me to come back, and when he does, I won’t come”. Way to think it through. He’d rather cut off OUR nose to spite OUR face because he has the ego of child. He doesn’t want to pay the political price for doing what needs to be done (even though he isn’t running for election). What a piece of shit.

Or we could just let ISIS turn Iraq and Syria turn into the most extreme, well funded terrorist breeding ground the world has ever seen… I mean that could NEVER affect US - it’s all the way over THERE… Cuz that’s what’s happening on his watch.

We SAW these terrorists MARCHING/driving on the road toward cities! Did we bomb them? Nope… Did we “draw a red line”? Nope… (he’s skeeerd to do that, now). Did we do ANYTHING to prevent these extremists from getting access to more money and weapons than they’ve ever had and that will probably be used against us in the near future? Nope… Cuz he’s a muslim -loving, communist pussy.
[/quote]

The hatred and subsequent blind ignorance towards Obama cannot be stymied.

319

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

The idea that only a brutal dictator can save a country…is particularly creepy, even when said in jest.[/quote]

Maybe so. But its creepiness doesn’t detract from its validity. The idea that any nation can be “democratised” is perhaps the most dangerous delusion under which Western foreign policists labour under. Democratisation is a process that takes centuries to achieve. The goal in Iraq should be stability, not a Western style democracy. The sad fact is that stability will not be achieved through any power sharing arrangement. It will only be achieved by the acquisition of power by a faction with the wherewithal to maintain it.

320

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

The idea that only a brutal dictator can save a country…is particularly creepy, even when said in jest.[/quote]

Maybe so. But its creepiness doesn’t detract from its validity. The idea that any nation can be “democratised” is perhaps the most dangerous delusion under which Western foreign policists labour under. Democratisation is a process that takes centuries to achieve. The goal in Iraq should be stability, not a Western style democracy. The sad fact is that stability will not be achieved through any power sharing arrangement. It will only be achieved by the acquisition of power by a faction with the wherewithal to maintain it.[/quote]

That’s the most succinctly accurate statement regarding our foreign policy blunders in the region I’ve read.