Bagdad Falling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
http://news.sky.com/story/1286443/iraq-shia-cleric-issues-threat-to-us-forces

Moqtada al Sadr has warned that the 300 US military advisers en route to Iraq will be attacked.

This situation reminds me of Mogadishu - Not enough men, not enough support, in hostile territory with no clear plan, without the political will to do what needs to be done. Imagine how many Gitmo prisoners they can get back if they manage to capture some more of our guys. The LEADER of ISIS, Abu Bakr, was in Gitmo and released in 2009 (under Obama’s watch). I’m sure they thought he was no threat at the time…

Keep in mind they have captured our TANKS, at least one Black Hawk helicopter and are estimated to have a 2 BILLION dollar war chest… “but 300 guys ought to do it”…

300? Really? Sorry, but that movie title’s been taken already. But it’s ALL Bush’s fault, right?[/quote]

You can’t even begin to compare Task Force Ranger, which was tasked with conducting direct action missions, with the 300 Army Special Forces conducting foreign internal defense. To continue to attempt to do so will only demonstrate that you have fundamental misunderstandings regarding the deployment of American military forces.[/quote]

Your response to people’s arguments merely consist of ,<<>> , <<< takes small portion of post and says, “stop arguing, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of XXXXXX” >>> LMAO you’re like a fucking parrot repeating himself. Tell me what else I fundamentally misunderstand. I mean shit, ENLIGHTEN US. Or, you could make a fucking counterpoint instead. Make a statement instead of just telling people they are wrong and should stop talking. This isn’t YOUR forum - I’ll say whatever the fuck I want.

Let me ask you this: do YOU think deploying 300 unsupported men is a good idea?[/quote]

You conflated the direct action oriented forces that constituted Task Force Ranger (75th Ranger regiment and Delta Force operatives) with the Army Special Forces (aka Green Berets) who will conduct foreign internal defense in Iraq. You chose to compare them to the Spartan hoplites who died delaying Persian forces at the battle of Thermopolae, which is disengenous to say the least.[/quote]

Dazzling folks with lots of cool information does not an argument make.[/quote]

When the aforementioned cool information is pertinent to what mission the deployed force in question will be conducting, yes, it does.

362

Bush could not foresee the Syrian civil war. It happened under Obama’s watch. It was his administration which aided both the rebels in Libya and Syria. Qaddafi has been overthrown and Libya is a more dangerous place. A general is currently battling Islamists there. Syria is also a more dangerous place and the fighting spilled over into Iraq. So, who’s to blame Obama? The Saudis? Other oil rich gulf nations?

For the first time in my life I think Putin was right about something. Perhaps we should have backed Assad.

363

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Bush could not foresee the Syrian civil war. [/quote]

Which means nothing.

Bush knew that Iraq would be vulnerable without an enduring American troop presence. That is why he wanted such a presence. (We all knew it, by the way.) He failed to win the provision of such a presence, and signed a SOFA prescribing complete withdrawal.

Obama knew the same, and tried the same, and suffered the same failure.

As I said earlier, that two men who failed to do precisely the same thing, for precisely the same reasons, are being judged so differently here…is a reflection upon “here,” not upon either of the two men.

364

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Bush could not foresee the Syrian civil war. It happened under Obama’s watch. It was his administration which aided both the rebels in Libya and Syria. Qaddafi has been overthrown and Libya is a more dangerous place. A general is currently battling Islamists there. Syria is also a more dangerous place and the fighting spilled over into Iraq. So, who’s to blame Obama? The Saudis? Other oil rich gulf nations?

For the first time in my life I think Putin was right about something. Perhaps we should have backed Assad. [/quote]

It’s funny, because all the same people that the warmongers responsible for the Iraq War demanded we aid in Syria are the exact same people the warmongers are now demanding we bomb into the Stone Age in Iraq now.

365

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It was signed two weeks before he left office. He had no time to renegotiate anything.[/quote]

At least someone here is paying attention.

I will construct a timeline shortly.
In the meantime, the Strategic Framework Agreement, by which the SOFA was negotiated:
http://intlhealth.fhpr.osd.mil/Libraries/IHDocuments/strategic_framework_agreement.sflb.ashx
See Section III

Gates, whom smh has referenced, in Dec 2008 fully expected “tens of thousands” of US troops would be in Iraq after the end of 2011. That would have “required” Mr Obama to be responsible and to actually act. Mr Gates was Obama’s Sec of Defense, recall. Mr. Obama did not act until late, and did not prioritize this issue appropriately. I repeat myself.
[/quote]

It is also apparent that Obama fought his own officials before he even began negotiations with Iraq. Aware of Obama’s desire for a rapid withdrawal, Admiral Mullen advised that the absolute minimum number of troops to be left post 2011 should be 15,000. Obama then whittled that down to 3,500 before he even began his “nudge nudge wink wink” negotiations with the Iraqis.

366

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In this thread we have the stupidest kind of partisanship on full reeking display.

We have a situation that two presidents, one Republican and one Democrat, failed to correctly handle, to literally the exact same effect. We have two presidents with the (admittedly very difficult) opportunity, desire, and responsibility to secure a remnant American security force in Iraq–and we have both of their utter failures to that end.

And yet one of those two presidents is being condemned and singled out as the sole recipient of blame, whereas the other is being obliquely defended or at least absolved of guilt and unmentioned. Or, where the latter president is also condemned, it is only after the condemnation’s having to be beaten out of the condemner.

All this despite the fact that that latter of the presidents mentioned above, in a moment of scintillating failure, created the whole problem in the first place.

A clearer taste of bullshit and hackery is difficult to imagine.[/quote]

No.

One President is responsible for his actions before January 2009. Another after January 2009. And I can quote Hillary Clinton in agreement, in 2011, “this deadline was set by President Bush.” But through his great leadership–read here, absence of action–we are left with these current results.

And if you doubt Ms. Clinton, before her unfortunately timed subdural hematoma, then read Mr. Obama’s comments at Fort Bragg Dec 14, 2011:

�¢??It�¢??s harder to end a war than begin one. Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq -�¢?? all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering -�¢?? all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we�¢??re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people. We�¢??re building a new partnership between our nations.�¢??

There are a half a dozen or more youtube videos of this and other venues with similar flavor.

Obama claimed the “success.”
So, although he implies taking the credit for events before 2009, it is agreed that Bush signed the agreement–in 2008–which was not altered one bit by Maliki and Obama from 2009 to 2014. Through the Strategic Framework Agreement, did Maliki and Obama alter the cooperation in a significant way?–no, there were at the most only feeble gestures.

Obama therefore inherited “a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq…” and now what? There is only one logical conclusion–attested by Clinton, Biden, and Obama himself–that through inaction, Obama had interited a “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq,” and allowed it to revert to the shitpot it was before 2007.

Obama, not Bush, is responsible for US policy after 2009. (smh: please do not redefine the political and legal meaning of responsible for me. I speak of responsibility, not the chain of causation.) No one is responsible for that asshole Maliki’s actions.

If someone does that “Bush made it happen” stuff, I will ask for the proof that Bush conspired to make Obama squander the situation he was handed in 2009.

[/quote]

I have already addressed and dismantled the feeble “but Obama talked himself up!” line of reasoning. You say things like this:

…Without mentioning the [u]fact[/u] that the Iraq which Obama inherited from Bush was also an Iraq which had signed a SOFA prescribing the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from its territory by December 31, 2011–that is, prescribing the eventual weakening of its military capability to an Iraqi-only level, regardless of any stability prior to the withdrawal. Bush had tried to do things different, and failed. Obama tried different, and failed.

And we have “responsibility,” yes? It is simpler than you are making it for yourself. Here:

  1. Iraq’s current troubles would have been avoided or ameliorated by the presence of a remnant U.S. security force.

  2. A president who was in the position to win the concession of such a security force, and failed, shares in the blame for [1].

  3. George W. Bush was in the position to win the concession of such a security force during SOFA negotiations in 2008, and he tried to do such. He failed.

  4. Barack Obama was in the position to win the concession of such a security force during negotiations in 2011, and he tried to do such. He failed.

  5. Therefore, George W. Bush and Barack Obama share in the blame for [1].

Reason, simple and clear, is truly beautiful, isn’t it?[/quote]

Bush worked for 2 years on SOFA then had 2 weeks to change it? As a lame duck? Obama had 6 years. Not quite so beautiful as any impartial reader can see.
Obama allows that he inherited a “stable, sovereign” nation with which to negotiate–he did not have to lift a finger. And now it is a shitpot. Simple. Clear. Indisputable. And truly beautiful work for the only person charged with protecting the situation…

367

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

It was signed two weeks before he left office. He had no time to renegotiate anything.[/quote]

At least someone here is paying attention.

I will construct a timeline shortly.
In the meantime, the Strategic Framework Agreement, by which the SOFA was negotiated:
http://intlhealth.fhpr.osd.mil/Libraries/IHDocuments/strategic_framework_agreement.sflb.ashx
See Section III

Gates, whom smh has referenced, in Dec 2008 fully expected “tens of thousands” of US troops would be in Iraq after the end of 2011. That would have “required” Mr Obama to be responsible and to actually act. Mr Gates was Obama’s Sec of Defense, recall. Mr. Obama did not act until late, and did not prioritize this issue appropriately. I repeat myself.
[/quote]

Perhaps you should refer to the last sentence of section three. Keep in mind the definition of “pursuant.”

…[/quote]

Signed on November 17,2008, which meant it was up to OBAMA to pursue any security arrangements, security arrangements which might have diminished the current disaster.

But no.
Obama must have better things to do, better insights, better intel (than his officials, Gates and Odierno, who counseled strongly in favor of a meaningful residual force).
And his apologists would always shift blame to Bush.
And he would always have lapdogs to defend him.

368

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Bush worked for 2 years on SOFA then had 2 weeks to change it?
[/quote]

No. (We are backtracking.)

Bush had all the time in the world to negotiate his SOFA with provisions for an enduring American presence.

That is what he wanted, and that is what he tried, and that is what was incumbent upon him. He failed and kicked the can to the next guy, who has the same trouble handling the can.

Yes?

Edit: Not two years, remember?

369

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Signed on November 17,2008, which meant it was up to OBAMA to pursue any security arrangements, security arrangements which might have diminished the current disaster.

But no.
Obama must have better things to do, better insights, better intel (than his officials, Gates and Odierno, who counseled strongly in favor of a meaningful residual force).
And his apologists would always shift blame to Bush.
And he would always have lapdogs to defend him. [/quote]

What about my last post are you not understanding/not capable of bringing yourself to acknowledge here on the twelfth repetition?

But hey, let’s make it thirteen. Note the dates: It should be obvious that nobody is chiding Bush for not having renegotiated his SOFA in the final month of his presidency. He should have negotiated the SOFA to provide for a remnant security force–as he wanted, as he tried over the course of 9 months (not two years, as I’ve already proved to you, contrary to the implication Krauthammer was pushing). Instead, he failed utterly, signed on to the promise that “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011,” and kicked the can to his successor, who suffered literally the same failure.

So, the relevant misunderstandings eradicated, we refer back to my construction from last night:

  1. Iraq’s current troubles would have been avoided or ameliorated by the presence of a remnant U.S. security force.

  2. A president who was in the position to win the concession of such a security force, and failed, shares in the blame for [1].

  3. George W. Bush was in the position to win the concession of such a security force during SOFA negotiations in 2008, and he tried to do such. He failed.

  4. Barack Obama was in the position to win the concession of such a security force during negotiations in 2011, and he tried to do such. He failed.

  5. Therefore, George W. Bush and Barack Obama share in the blame for [1].

370

^ [The big unspoken difference being that Bush’s and Obama’s respective failures to secure an enduring security force really amount to a failure to extend the cleanup of Bush’s costly, deadly, numbingly stupid debacle of a war in the first place–a war jammed down our throats by his shady, lying cripple of an administration. So, while Mssrs. Bush and Obama share the blame for their equal failure to negotiate a proper SOFA with the proper security provisions–as I’ve now proved multiple times–it is the former to whom our “thank you for this whole big steaming pile of shit” cards should be addressed. Or are we now defining “responsibility” in such a way that the Texas School Board will be ordering history textbooks with “Chapter 17: Obama Launches Operation Iraqi Liberation in March 2003.”]

371

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Obama allows that he inherited a “stable, sovereign” nation with which to negotiate
[/quote]

Again we move backwards. If you make a point, and I make a counter-point, it is better to counter the counter-point than to simply re-make the point.

[quote]
smh_23 wrote:
You say things like this:

…Without mentioning the [u]fact[/u] that the Iraq which Obama inherited from Bush was also an Iraq which had signed a SOFA prescribing the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from its territory by December 31, 2011–that is, prescribing the eventual weakening of its military capability to an Iraqi-only level, regardless of any stability prior to the withdrawal. Bush had tried to do things different, and failed. Obama tried different, and failed.[/quote]

So: Iraq was stable in January 2009 because there were close to 160,000 American troops in the country. This Mr. Obama inherited from Mr. Bush.

What Mr. Obama also inherited from Mr. Bush was an agreement to change that number from 160,000 to zero by December 31, 2011. Zero. Nada. At which point the whole stability thing would become a hell of a lot more precarious.

Bush knew this; he tried to do different and couldn’t. Obama knew this; he tried to do different and couldn’t. The two presidents in question were in the position to achieve, tried to achieve, and failed to achieve what literally cannot be described as anything other than the same thing. And the story ends.

372

Did he? Then why did he ignore Mullen’s advice to leave a minimum of 15,000 troops in Iraq post 2011 and whittle it down to 3,500 before he even began negotiations with Malarkey? Do you really contend that Obama was seriously interested in leaving an adequate force in Iraq post 2011? Everything he said and did indicates otherwise.

373

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Did he? [/quote]

Yep.

[quote]
Then why did he ignore Mullen’s advice to leave a minimum of 15,000 troops in Iraq post 2011 and whittle it down to 3,500 before he even began negotiations with Malarkey?[/quote]

Already addressed:

–AP, Jul. 6 2011

The number shrunk as the Iraqis remained obstinate. The initial discussions were of far more troops than 3,500.

374

But let’s say Gordon and Trainor got it right and Obama and his advisers scaled back to 3500 troops by Aug. 2011 because of their own calculations (into which Iraqi intransigence certainly figured). The talks of 10,000 had failed, and then the 3500 failed. Obama got nothing, despite trying to get something. Just like Bush. So what is your point? If you want something to stand as evidence here, you have to prove it. If you can prove that Obama didn’t actually want any enduring presence, go ahead and prove it. Otherwise it is submitted and accepted that he did.

And you must prove that a force of 3500 would not have had an effect on Isis’ success up to now.

And, most importantly, you must contend with the certainty that scaling a force from 3,500 up is much, much, much easier, both tactically and politically, than re-introducing a force from scratch.

That is, Obama’s 3,500 would have gone a long way for us by now. But he didn’t get it. And Bush didn’t get it. They both got a big fat zero–the same result. If this fact continues unacknowledged, this thread has succeeded in exhausting my patience.

375

3,500 American troops are worth about 250,000 non-Kurd Iraqi troops.

Actually, considering that so many Iraqi troops seem unable to resist abandoning their posts, the greater worth of an American security force is in some ways immeasurable.

And there is the certainty that a SOFA with provisions for 3,500 troops would also have ambiguous language designed to provide for the support and aid of those troops in the event that they found themselves outmatched by, say, an invading army. Politically/diplomatically/strategically, we would find the current situation infinitely simpler if we had any kind of enduring presence in Iraq right now.

But we don’t, do we?

Because Because Bush couldn’t get one.

And because Obama couldn’t get one.

And that’s that.

376

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Did he? [/quote]

Yep.

[quote]
Then why did he ignore Mullen’s advice to leave a minimum of 15,000 troops in Iraq post 2011 and whittle it down to 3,500 before he even began negotiations with Malarkey?[/quote]

Already addressed:

–AP, Jul. 6 2011

The number shrunk as the Iraqis remained obstinate. The initial discussions were of far more troops than 3,500.[/quote]

And further in the same article:

“We have said for a long time now if the Iraqi government asks us to maintain some level of troops beyond that end of the year deadline, we would consider it,” Carney told reporters in Washington.

If the Iraqis ask us we’ll “consider it.” Heavy pressure there.

He appeared to back off that possibility, however, adding: "That doesn’t necessarily mean we would do it. We would just consider it.

That doesn’t mean we will even if they ask us…it just means, kinda gobbledygook, flim flam.

“Iraq’s top military commander, Gen. Babaker Shawkat Zebari, has long maintained that Iraqi security forces need another decade of training and aid before they are ready to protect the country alone…”

We might consider leaving some there if we’re asked…in a sense.

“Iraqi Kurds, who have long relied on American forces to protect them, are lobbying for U.S. troops to stay.”

Maybe…but then again, maybe not.

377

OK, I have no choice but to cut through the bullshit at this point. I’m not interested in “suggestions” about what the relevant players “really cared about.” I am not interested in pretending as though years-old political rhetoric and waffling are superior to simple inarguable fact in the hierarchy of evidence. I am interested only in what can be proved, and what cannot.

It has been proved beyond doubt that both Bush and Obama negotiated a remnant security force with the Iraqis.

It has been proved beyond doubt that both of them failed.

Thus, the absence of a remnant security force in Iraq is the product of two different presidents’ same inability to win such a concession from the same Iraqi government.

378

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Did he? [/quote]

Yep.

More of the same.

Do you know how Press Secretaries talk? It’s like this, above. All the time. “Maybe, maybe not.” It’s a press secretary’s job to leave everything open to the greatest extent that he can.

But we don’t need to speculate anymore.

We don’t need to focus on the political equivocation of a press secretary.

We know just what happened. We know just what was discussed. We know what was refused.

Willful ignorance is playing a greater role than it ever should here.

379

If Obama was serious about leaving an adequate force in Iraq his spokesidiot would’ve said something like:

“It is essential that we keep enough forces in Iraq to stabilise the country and train the Iraqi National Army. We strongly urge all parties to come to the table and agree upon an extension of SOFA.”

That’s the language of an administration serious about extending SOFA. Carney’s statements amount to “can we go now?”

380

But of course Obama is never judged by what he says or does. There’s always some argument that strains the credulity: “yes, I know Obama attended Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty years and had him baptise his children. But it’s conceivable that Obama was suffering from hearing difficulties during that time when Wright was raving about Jewish plots and crackers. You can’t prove that Obama agreed with him.”