Bagdad Falling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

You agree with me, then, that it is bullshit to say that the withdrawal was Obama’s idea, as if he (Obama) engineered it and signed it into existence?

[/quote]

It was the “idea” of defeatists. An idea reluctantly adopted by Bush but fervently pushed by radicals like Obama, Kucinich and Ron Paul.[/quote]

Please cite hard evidence that Bush was reluctant to negotiate and sign SOFA but relented under pressure from Obama and his supporters.[/quote]

“Bush attempted to negotiate a deal that would have left forces in Iraq…”

http://www.cato.org/blog/not-news-obama-opposed-sending-us-troops-back-iraq[/quote]

Oh man, talk about selective editing.

See my previous post for the whole quote.

This kind of thing is not like you.[/quote]

I disagree with the author. Obama did try to get a deal to leave a residual force there but not enough:

"40 conservative foreign policy professionals who wrote to Obama in September to warn that even a residual force of 4,000 troops would “leave the country more vulnerable to internal and external threats, thus imperiling the hard-fought gains in security and governance made in recent years at significant cost to the United States.”

And there’s more to the story:

"…the administration’s negotiating strategy was flawed for a number of reasons: it failed to take into account Iraqi politics, failed to reach out to a broad enough group of Iraqi political leaders, and sent contradictory messages on the troop extension throughout the process.

From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns," said Sullivan.

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

“An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass.” - Foreign Policy

So he didn’t actually try and “fail.” He argued for keeping a force there that was too small then pulled out when he didn’t need to.

82

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And also explain this:

That’s the NYT write-up of the SOFA approval in Iraq. The NYT obviously loves both Obama and military defeatism, so why didn’t they make any connection between Obama and the SOFA beyond an analyst’s speculation that Iran might have been more rigid if Bush’s presidency were going to extend into 2012? Why did they describe Bush Admin. reluctance only within the context of concessions to Maliki?

I’ll answer: Because there was no such connection to make.[/quote]

That article highlights two of the points I made: that Bush was reluctant to precipitously withdraw troops. And that some of the pressure to withdraw came from the Iraqis.
[/quote]

Who you’d do what with in order to force our indefinite stay? Overthrow? The government we made sure got elected? Edit: We would’ve become, outright, in the open, under the light of the day, exactly what the Jihadis told everyone we were. Conquerors. Not security partners of a representative Iraqi government, but outright conquerors. The nation would have blown up even earlier had we pulled a stunt like that.
[/quote]

The Iraqi government would’ve allowed us to stay. By “pressure from the Iraqis” I was talking about the disenfranchised Sunnis and the Sadrists.

83

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But the pull out was absolutely, emphatically not “Obama’s idea.”[/quote]

The fact that eventually there was going to be a pull out was not. The tentative date set by Bush was first tentative, and second was subject to an assessment of the situation on the ground, and third was subject to “combat troops”, not all troops. There was to remain a remnant of troops for continued training and maintenance.

The idea of setting a public hard date, regardless of whether or not the job was done or not was not Bush’s idea. Bush always maintained that we would not pull out until Iraq was ready.

The idea of pulling up stakes regardless of the situation, making that date public and pulling all American troops was omaba’s decision alone.
You cannot hold Bush accountable for something he set in 2008 as a tentative date, for what obama did in 2011. Bush would not have done a hard pull out and he would not have publicized the date.
So yes, this was obama’s fault. He made all those decisions. He knew, everybody knew that the Iraqis were not ready to take sole control. He did it anyway. It was his mistake, and it was costly. It was as evidently a stupid decision then as it is now.

84

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And also explain this:

That’s the NYT write-up of the SOFA approval in Iraq. The NYT obviously loves both Obama and military defeatism, so why didn’t they make any connection between Obama and the SOFA beyond an analyst’s speculation that Iran might have been more rigid if Bush’s presidency were going to extend into 2012? Why did they describe Bush Admin. reluctance only within the context of concessions to Maliki?

I’ll answer: Because there was no such connection to make.[/quote]

That article highlights two of the points I made: that Bush was reluctant to precipitously withdraw troops. And that some of the pressure to withdraw came from the Iraqis.
[/quote]

Who you’d do what with in order to force our indefinite stay? Overthrow? The government we made sure got elected? Edit: We would’ve become, outright, in the open, under the light of the day, exactly what the Jihadis told everyone we were. Conquerors. Not security partners of a representative Iraqi government, but outright conquerors. The nation would have blown up even earlier had we pulled a stunt like that.
[/quote]

The Iraqi government would’ve allowed us to stay. By “pressure from the Iraqis” I was talking about the disenfranchised Sunnis and the Sadrists.[/quote]

Oh yes, by pulling a stunt in which our troops would obtain “diplomatic immunity” due to us going around the representative leaders of the Iraqis…That would’ve went over well with the public.

“Ways to drive up insurgent recruitment #1: Use technicalities to get around the wishes of the Iraqi public, as made clear through their representatives, of who are members of the government you made sure came about.”

85

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And also explain this:

That’s the NYT write-up of the SOFA approval in Iraq. The NYT obviously loves both Obama and military defeatism, so why didn’t they make any connection between Obama and the SOFA beyond an analyst’s speculation that Iran might have been more rigid if Bush’s presidency were going to extend into 2012? Why did they describe Bush Admin. reluctance only within the context of concessions to Maliki?

I’ll answer: Because there was no such connection to make.[/quote]

That article highlights two of the points I made: that Bush was reluctant to precipitously withdraw troops. And that some of the pressure to withdraw came from the Iraqis.
[/quote]

Who you’d do what with in order to force our indefinite stay? Overthrow? The government we made sure got elected? Edit: We would’ve become, outright, in the open, under the light of the day, exactly what the Jihadis told everyone we were. Conquerors. Not security partners of a representative Iraqi government, but outright conquerors. The nation would have blown up even earlier had we pulled a stunt like that.
[/quote]

The Iraqi government would’ve allowed us to stay. By “pressure from the Iraqis” I was talking about the disenfranchised Sunnis and the Sadrists.[/quote]

Oh yes, by pulling a stunt in which our troops would obtain “diplomatic immunity” due to us going around the representative leaders of the Iraqis…That would’ve went over well with the public.

“Ways to drive up insurgent recruitment #1: Use technicalities to get around the wishes of the Iraqi public, as made clear through their representatives, of who are members of the government you made sure came about.”
[/quote]

The “public” doesn’t really follow the intricacies of foreign policy negotiations. Most of them would be hard pressed to find Iraq on a map. Besides, putting military advisers and trainers on a diplomatic list is hardly a nefarious tactic likely to rile people up.

86

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But the pull out was absolutely, emphatically not “Obama’s idea.”[/quote]

The fact that eventually there was going to be a pull out was not. The tentative date set by Bush was first tentative, and second was subject to an assessment of the situation on the ground, and third was subject to “combat troops”, not all troops. There was to remain a remnant of troops for continued training and maintenance.

The idea of setting a public hard date, regardless of whether or not the job was done or not was not Bush’s idea. Bush always maintained that we would not pull out until Iraq was ready.

The idea of pulling up stakes regardless of the situation, making that date public and pulling all American troops was omaba’s decision alone.
You cannot hold Bush accountable for something he set in 2008 as a tentative date, for what obama did in 2011. Bush would not have done a hard pull out and he would not have publicized the date.
So yes, this was obama’s fault. He made all those decisions. He knew, everybody knew that the Iraqis were not ready to take sole control. He did it anyway. It was his mistake, and it was costly. It was as evidently a stupid decision then as it is now.

[/quote]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/18/56116/unofficial-translation-of-us-iraq.html#storylink=cpy

[quote]
All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.

All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces mentioned in item (2) above are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns that will be determined by the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) before the date determined in item (2) above.

The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.

The two parties agree to put a mechanism and preparations for reducing the number of U.S. forces during the appointed period. And they are to agree on the locations where the forces are to settle.[/quote]

That is not tentative, and it sets hard dates.

It is simply nonsense to pretend that this plan was not hatched under Bush.

87

Signed November 17, 2008. The whole game plan, right there for the world to see, and executed faithfully.

Anything about this having been “Obama’s idea” is piffle.

There is a reason that all of this is happening, and it’s got everything to do with some jackass who’s making pretty paintings in Texas right now.

88

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

You agree with me, then, that it is bullshit to say that the withdrawal was Obama’s idea, as if he (Obama) engineered it and signed it into existence?

[/quote]

It was the “idea” of defeatists. An idea reluctantly adopted by Bush but fervently pushed by radicals like Obama, Kucinich and Ron Paul.[/quote]

Please cite hard evidence that Bush was reluctant to negotiate and sign SOFA but relented under pressure from Obama and his supporters.[/quote]

“Bush attempted to negotiate a deal that would have left forces in Iraq…”

http://www.cato.org/blog/not-news-obama-opposed-sending-us-troops-back-iraq[/quote]

Oh man, talk about selective editing.

See my previous post for the whole quote.

This kind of thing is not like you.[/quote]

I disagree with the author…
[/quote]

SO you linked to an author in support of your claim, while editing out the part where your claim was denied, and then you are forced to impugn he arument of the very source you originally cited?

Like I said, Herculean acts of waffling and equivocation.

I should have left it at my first post, at the link to the SOFA. That is all I need whatsoever.

And I am still waiting on this hard evidence linking pressure from Obama to Bush’s being forced to undertake the year-long negotiations that resulted in SOFA.

Again, this is funny to watch: The guy who started the war and [b]signed the agreement whereby the troops would come home from the war he started[/b]–none of this was his idea. This was Obama’s idea.

Not even a little.

89

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

The “public” doesn’t really follow the intricacies of foreign policy negotiations. Most of them would be hard pressed to find Iraq on a map. Besides, putting military advisers and trainers on a diplomatic list is hardly a nefarious tactic likely to rile people up.[/quote]

When the absence of immunity was about the only way those leaders could MAYBE sell a larger and continuing US troop presence to a public who wanted us out, and who has a penchant for rearranging the body parts of its politicians…Yes, it would’ve been noticed. It would’ve ended up at item number one on the insurgent/jihadi recruitment pamphlet. There’s a reason why those leaders had to make that demand of us. The present location of their heads depended on it. Dangerous enough line of work when jihadis/insurgents want you dead. But especially, when the public at large wants you vaporized by an IED on your way to do the “people’s” business for having sold out their demands.

90

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

SO you linked to an author in support of your claim, while editing out the part where your claim was denied, and then you are forced to impugn he arument of the very source you originally cited?

[/quote]

I was asked to provide specific evidence for something that happened six years ago. I quoted a specific part of an article relating to that evidence. The fact that I disagree with an unrelated comment in the same article is neither here nor there. And I also explained why I disagreed and provided sources.

I think it’s pretty obvious that there was enormous pressure from defeatists. You remember the millions of people marching at anti-war demonstrations? The ones Obama was speaking at?

[quote]
Again, this is funny to watch: The guy who started the war and [b]signed the agreement whereby the troops would come home from the war he started[/b]–none of this was his idea. This was Obama’s idea.

Not even a little.[/quote]

Bush wasn’t a defeatist. Obama was. Besides, the real issue is their respective foreign policy records: Bush was bad; Obama infinitely worse.

91

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

The “public” doesn’t really follow the intricacies of foreign policy negotiations. Most of them would be hard pressed to find Iraq on a map. Besides, putting military advisers and trainers on a diplomatic list is hardly a nefarious tactic likely to rile people up.[/quote]

When the absence of immunity was about the only way those leaders could MAYBE sell a larger and continuing US troop presence to a public who wanted us out, and who has a penchant for rearranging the body parts of its politicians…Yes, it would’ve been noticed. It would’ve ended up at item number one on the insurgent/jihadi recruitment pamphlet. There’s a reason why those leaders had to make that demand of us. The present location of their heads depended on it. Dangerous enough line of work when jihadis/insurgents want you dead. But especially, when the public at large wants you vaporized by an IED on your way to do the “people’s” business for having sold out their demands.
[/quote]

Read the Foreign Policy article I linked to. It had nothing to do with fear of the Iraqi public.

92

If victory is indefinitely spilling blood and debt-backed dollars into the soil of Iraq, where the public’s hatred for each other is only surpassed by their hatred for our presence…

Thank God for defeatists.

The whole enterprise ruined the right.

Can’t wait to see a GoP Presidential candidate campaign on “I’ll be sending troops back to Iraq!”

93

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I think it’s pretty obvious that there was enormous pressure from defeatists. You remember the millions of people marching at anti-war demonstrations? The ones Obama was speaking at?

[/quote]

There was enormous pressure from the American people, who considered Bush an abject failure and Iraq his greatest fuck-up.

But we’re talking about what was and was not “Obama’s idea.” Remember that I entered this thread with a specific criticism of a specific (incorrect) claim. When I made that criticism–and I attended to it simple factual evidence–you started talking about how Bush was reluctant and Obama this and that…soft waffling.

So, either Bush is responsible for the SOFA, or he is not. Either the SOFA was Obama’s idea, or Obama had not been elected and had exactly nothing to do with the year of negotiations that culminated in a document signed months before he had a single ounce of executive power in the United States of America.

If there is a a direct, evidenced connection between Obama and Bush’s allegedly reluctant decision to withdraw from Iraq, now is the time for you to prove it.

94

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The fact that I disagree with an unrelated comment in the same article is neither here nor there.
[/quote]

Unrelated? That’s nonsense and you know it. It was the next sentence, and it was obviously, baldly connected in the most fundamental way.

95

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The fact that I disagree with an unrelated comment in the same article is neither here nor there.
[/quote]

Unrelated? That’s nonsense and you know it. It was the next sentence, and it was obviously, baldly connected in the most fundamental way.[/quote]

It was unrelated to the evidence you requested. You requested evidence that Bush was reluctant to precipitously withdraw. Whether Obama was also reluctant - he wasn’t, despite what the author said - is unrelated.

96

Bush’s foreign policy was a sinister nightmare wrapped in an incompetent clusterfuck, and we’re still paying for it today. He went into Iraq, he signed the SOFA. We were there because he put us there, and we left on the dates set by the agreement he negotiated and signed. Any suggestion that any of this was “Obama’s idea” is pure and unadulterated fantasy.

97

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The fact that I disagree with an unrelated comment in the same article is neither here nor there.
[/quote]

Unrelated? That’s nonsense and you know it. It was the next sentence, and it was obviously, baldly connected in the most fundamental way.[/quote]

It was unrelated to the evidence you requested. You requested evidence that Bush was reluctant to precipitously withdraw. Whether Obama was also reluctant - he wasn’t, despite what the author said - is unrelated.[/quote]

No, I requested evidence that Obama had some causal effect on Bush’s reluctance.

98

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

There was enormous pressure from the American people,

[/quote]

I agree. The American people are defeatists and cultural Marxists. Sorry, but it’s true.

The troop surge largely stabilised Iraq. The narrative that Iraq was “unwinnable” is a fantasy. It’s still winnable - by a country not demoralised by hardcore pacifists that is. I’m not saying my country is any different by the way.

Attributing the origin of the “idea” is meaningless as it was an idea held by millions of people from the moment the war started. My point was that Obama was part of the movement that was pushing it and it was the main component of his platform.

[quote]

So, either Bush is responsible for the SOFA, or he is not. Either the SOFA was Obama’s idea, or Obama had not been elected and had exactly nothing to do with the year of negotiations that culminated in a document signed months before he had a single ounce of executive power in the United States of America.

If there is a a direct, evidenced connection between Obama and Bush’s allegedly reluctant decision to withdraw from Iraq, now is the time for you to prove it.[/quote]

I quoted a good description of the process from the Foreign Policy article.

99

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If victory is indefinitely spilling blood and debt-backed dollars into the soil of Iraq, where the public’s hatred for each other is only surpassed by their hatred for our presence…

Thank God for defeatists.

The whole enterprise ruined the right.

Can’t wait to see a GoP Presidential candidate campaign on “I’ll be sending troops back to Iraq!” [/quote]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/IraqPollMemo.pdf

100

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Bush’s foreign policy was a sinister nightmare…[/quote]

Well at least there’s nothing sinister about Obama’s foreign policy. I’m sure there’s some innocent explanation for why every single move he makes appears calculated to benefit the enemy and harm the US and its allies.