Bagdad Falling

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]theuofh wrote:

What are we going to do about the MEK which was taken off the official state department terrorist organization list, specifically to combat Iran.

[/quote]

MEK are a spent force. They’re of no strategic benefit. What happens to them is merely a question of ethics.

[quote]

General William Odom has a paper out there that I found personally interesting arguing that this second Iraq war was the worst foreign policy mistake in American history and his arguments are compelling. The guy isn’t a left wing nutjob either. It’s worth a read to see the diplomatic contrasts between our involvements in the first and second Iraq wars. The first was the result of brilliant diplomacy, statesmanship, and deal making that should be expected of worthy leadership with foresight and competence. The second was a disastrous result of unilateralism, arrogance, and greed, doomed to fail from the very beginning. [/quote]

The wisdom of toppling Saddam is an historical question. It’s not relevant to what’s happening now. The foreign policy of the current administration is what matters now.

162

[quote]on edge wrote:
All this has been a great benefit to me financially. My solar stock portfolio went up 6 grand yesterday and another six grand today. I’m a big fan of symmetry so lets go for another 6 grand tomorrow.[/quote]

Darn, I’m going to have to lament with Lebron.

163

[quote]Sifu wrote:

No. Mufasa first invoked a strawman of the left that the Iraq war was started so Cheney could set up his cronies at Halliburton with a lucrative contract.[/quote]

Did he? Please cite, using Mufasa’s own words, this claim that the war was begun by Cheney in order for his cronies to profit.

By the way, that is not a straw man. It’s an accusation. A straw man is a weak argument one makes and then puts in one’s opponent’s mouth in order to subsequently tear it apart. The claim that Cheney designed the Iraq War with Halliburton’s bottom line in mind is not a straw man; it is an accusation. This is neither here nor there, though, because nobody has made such an accusation hereabouts.

[quote]
The hypocrisy is ignoring the fact that it was during the Clinton presidency that Halliburton was given their contract to provide support services to the military.[/quote]

Mufasa made the point that Halliburton made a boatload of cash in Iraq. You’re upset that he didn’t provide a Wikipedia-style “history” section, noting Clinton’s involvement in the early days, which have nothing to do with the War in Iraq? And do you know for a fact that Mufasa voted for and supports Bill Clinton?

[quote]
The amounts of money involved are irrelevant.[/quote]

I’m sure you’d like them to be, but they aren’t.

Mufasa made a specific and explicit criticism of the absurd amount of money Cheney’s Halliburton friends made on the Iraq War (my addition: While we, the taxpayers, were spending trillions. Trillions. But I guess I’m fiscally conservative compared to the malevolent assholes who designed the clusterfuck that we’re presently discussing.) You called him a hypocrite and invoked Serbia. It should be obvious to you that it is incumbent upon you to show that Halliburton’s Serbia haul was at least on the same order of magnitude as its Iraq haul (hint: It wasn’t). This being, you know, the sine qua non of hypocrisy.

Allow me to belabor the point: Peyton and Eli Manning are having dinner together. Peyton tells Eli he threw too many interceptions in the 2013 season, and suggests that Eli work on his awareness. Eli calls Peyton a hypocrite, because “guess what Peyton, you threw interceptions too!!!” But wait–Eli threw almost three times as many interceptions as Peyton. So, although they both turned the ball over, their stats were not remotely comparable. Eli, it turns out, has his head up his ass. And Peyton is not a hypocrite.

[quote]
Also we lost an F117 over Serbia that allowed the Chinese to gain access to stealth technology. So there is no telling how many Americans might eventually die because of Clinton’s war.[/quote]

“There’s no telling,” as in, “two people died, and not in combat, but maybe someday the Chinese!!!”

You know what there is telling of? American deaths in Iraq. Very precise telling. And it’s a few more than two.

[quote]
When Clinton hired and then used Halliburton he was a good guy.[/quote]

Point me to the post wherein anything remotely like this was argued or implied.

164

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The ethics of interpersonal relationships are not applicable to the international realm. However, inter group ethics are; its cardinal rule being that statesmen should not seek the greatest good for the greatest number, but the lesser evil. Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah are arguably the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

If it was up to me, I’d have backed both Saddam and Qaddafi against the Islamists instead of having anarchy in those countries. Possibly we could have come to terms with those 2. [/quote]

We already had come to terms with Gaddafi. He’d renounced violence and even paid compensation to the Lockerbie victims. In short, he was an ally of the West and he kept the crazies under wraps. Overthrowing him was possibly one of the worst blunders of the 21st century. Aside from the immediate and obvious consequences it sent a message to the Muslim world: renouncing violence and making a deal with the West is a bad idea. It was truly frightening watching that maniac in the State Department cackling with glee about Gaddafi’s lynching.

165

So, you are talking about “straw men” where none exist, while in the very same breath building your own straw men re: “Cheney started the war for Halliburton” and “Clinton is a good guy and never did any wrong” (two things that nobody has argued here).

So–irony.

166

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The ethics of interpersonal relationships are not applicable to the international realm. However, inter group ethics are; its cardinal rule being that statesmen should not seek the greatest good for the greatest number, but the lesser evil. Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah are arguably the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

If it was up to me, I’d have backed both Saddam and Qaddafi against the Islamists instead of having anarchy in those countries. Possibly we could have come to terms with those 2. [/quote]

We already had come to terms with Gaddafi. He’d renounced violence and even paid compensation to the Lockerbie victims. In short, he was an ally of the West and he kept the crazies under wraps. Overthrowing him was possibly one of the worst blunders of the 21st century. Aside from the immediate and obvious consequences it sent a message to the Muslim world: renouncing violence and making a deal with the West is a bad idea. It was truly frightening watching that maniac in the State Department cackling with glee about Gaddafi’s lynching.

[/quote]

I agree with you. What’s this administration’s objective turning the Middle East into anarchy? I’m starting to side with the friggin Ruskies for the first time in my life about this situation…lol. Say what you will about Bush, but since Obama’s been in office Islamic terrorism has spread in leaps and bounds. It seemed they were trying to contain it, but now it’s uncontrollable.

167

I’m trying to remember whether it was Cheney or Clinton who a took a $34 million exit package to resign as Haliburton’s CEO and run for a job in the White House and who gradually sold Haliburton stock options from 2000 to 2005. Maybe it’ll come to me later.

169

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Whether the exit was Obama’s idea the whole way through, as if he came up with this defeatist plan and pushed it through the Iraqi government himself, is a non-issue. I have proved it wrong. It was negotiated, designed (including dates–exact ones), and signed under Bush.

Do you want to say, instead, that Obama should have violated the SOFA? Because that is equally fantastical.[/quote]

You are correct, of course, though it does seem only fair that, having claimed the credit for the withdrawal, Obama also be given (at least some of) the blame.[/quote]

The shit was going to hit the fan whenever we left. So the alternatives were leave at some point and have the shit hit the fan or stay forever. Delaying the SOFA would have simply delayed the inevitable. Bush didn’t make a bad decision signing the SOFA and Obama didn’t make a bad decision honoring it. The bad decisions leading to the current mess were: (1) invading Iraq; and (2) completely disbanding the iraqi military; and (3) and proceeding with an over-agressive program of debaathification.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1106.pdf

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/12/iraqi-lawmakers-pass-key-benchmark-de-baathification-law/

170

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(And I’ll take a “strawman hit” or whatever on this one… because I can’t get past Cheney’s arrogance…)

Let’s also try 40 BILLION plus for IRAQ ALONE for Halliburton (…and counting…and not counting Afghanistan…)

Millions of dollars for him in the War “effort”…

And most importantly, the death and sacrifice of thousands of Americans.

Cheney just needs to retire on his millions and shoot some more of his friends…

Mufasa[/quote]

This is a great example of the hypocrisy of the left. They try to act like Cheney and Halliburton is some awful boogeyman while completely ignoring the fact that it was President Clinton who got Halliburton started in the military support business. Then he attacked Serbia, a country that really wasn’t a threat to us and we still have troops in Bosnia today because of that war.

[/quote]

By using the term “hypocrisy,” you are suggesting an equivalence. Mufasa explicitly invoked two points: The amount of money that Halliburton made in Iraq, and the number of Americans who died in Iraq.

How much money did Halliburton make in Serbia? And, much more importantly, how many Americans died in Serbia?[/quote]

Total nonsense… and I’ve never pulled anything but a red lever in my life. [/quote]

You should see a doctor for that. It can probably be treated with antibiotics.

172

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Whether the exit was Obama’s idea the whole way through, as if he came up with this defeatist plan and pushed it through the Iraqi government himself, is a non-issue. I have proved it wrong. It was negotiated, designed (including dates–exact ones), and signed under Bush.

Do you want to say, instead, that Obama should have violated the SOFA? Because that is equally fantastical.[/quote]

You are correct, of course, though it does seem only fair that, having claimed the credit for the withdrawal, Obama also be given (at least some of) the blame.[/quote]

“Some hell” I’m fine with. It’s certainly true that Obama didn’t really seem to mention the SOFA throughout the entire 2012 election, isn’t it?

So “some hell” is good with me. But the quote that caused me to jump in–it wasn’t “some hell.” It was “this was all Obama!”

173

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Whether the exit was Obama’s idea the whole way through, as if he came up with this defeatist plan and pushed it through the Iraqi government himself, is a non-issue. I have proved it wrong. It was negotiated, designed (including dates–exact ones), and signed under Bush.

Do you want to say, instead, that Obama should have violated the SOFA? Because that is equally fantastical.[/quote]

You are correct, of course, though it does seem only fair that, having claimed the credit for the withdrawal, Obama also be given (at least some of) the blame.[/quote]

“Some hell” I’m fine with. It’s certainly true that Obama didn’t really seem to mention the SOFA throughout the entire 2012 election, isn’t it?

So “some hell” is good with me. But the quote that caused me to jump in–it wasn’t “some hell.” It was “this was all Obama!”[/quote]

Obama:

“Governor[Romney], here’s one thing…I’ve learned as commander in chief. You’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean,” Obama said. “Now, you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East.”

Before President George W. Bush left office in 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a pact, or a status of forces agreement, with the U.S. that put the complete withdrawal of troops by the end of 2011.

Still, officials on both sides expected some American troops to remain to help protect and train the Iraqis with security threats to their border, waterways and airspace, the New York Times reported. Over the course of 2011, Obama scaled down the number of troops he thought should be in place to between 3,000 and 5,000.

The result: No combat troops remained in Iraq…

Romney criticized Obama for pursuing a total withdrawal from the country instead of securing a residual force…

Romney: “…America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence.”

…in a December 2011 interview with Fox News, he[Romney] said “we should have left 10-, 20-, 30,000 personnel there to help transition to the Iraqi’s own military capabilities.”

More Obama quotes from 2012:

Obama: “Four years ago I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did.”

Drones: “Four more years! Four more years! Woohoo! Whoopie!”

Obama: “My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy.”

(Dummies clap)

Obama: “My opponent - my opponent said that it was tragic to end the war in Iraq.”

Fantasy of course. Romney wanted a gradual drawdown based on conditions on the ground.

Obama: “…it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It’ll require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued…”

Drones: Woohoo! Yeah!

174

Why are we walking in circles?

I have addressed the Obama “I ended the war” rhetoric multiple times.

Nothing of what I’ve written has changed, and the facts I’ve linked to have been, you know, facts. Not transcripts of stump speeches.

My participation in this thread began in response to a number of specific claims which were factually and provably inaccurate. I have shown them to be so beyond the possibility of doubt and to my thorough satisfaction.

I know that most of you would just love it if the December 2011 withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq had been Obama’s initiative and doing. I know you’d love it if he had come into office and forced a defeatist SOFA through the Iraqi government, signing off on draw-down dates while the brilliant analysts at Fox told us how fucking terrible the SOFA was. (I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what many around here thought, before I started ruining the party.) That was exactly the narrative that was being peddled, and it was my purpose in entering this debate to dispossess its pushers of their misconceptions.

Because, thing is, the partisans have a small problem: That narrative–it ain’t what happened. Bush, abject failure that he was, initiated this enormous fuck-up in 2003. He directed his diplomatic officers to negotiate an agreement with the Iraqis in 2007. A year later, he signed off on the exit, dates and all. And he failed to secure the jurisdictional conditions for a substantial vestigial force, just like his successor did. Sucks, I know. But its the way things went down.

175

The point you’re missing - or glossing over - is that the dates weren’t set in stone. They were subject to conditions on the ground. Conditions to which Obama paid no heed in his rush to pull stumps.

176

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The point you’re missing - or glossing over - is that the dates weren’t set in stone. They were subject to conditions on the ground. Conditions to which Obama paid no heed in his rush to pull stumps.[/quote]

What? Cite this in the Status of Forces Agreement. I linked it a few pages back.

And let’s say you’re right. That adds a nuance, but it doesn’t change a thing about my point here.

But anyway, please cite the relevant portion of the SOFA.

177

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The point you’re missing - or glossing over - is that the dates weren’t set in stone. They were subject to conditions on the ground. Conditions to which Obama paid no heed in his rush to pull stumps.[/quote]

What were the intervening variables in the Iraqi security environment when US combat forces began their withdraw? You asset that the country was largely pacified in 2008 as a result of the surge, of which I agree led to significant gains. What changed in the 3 years following 2008 before the treaty obligations of SOFA kicked in? Did top US military and intelligence officers express their belief that Iraq would again devolve after the pacifying influence of US forces receded?

178

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The point you’re missing - or glossing over - is that the dates weren’t set in stone. They were subject to conditions on the ground. Conditions to which Obama paid no heed in his rush to pull stumps.[/quote]

What? Cite this in the Status of Forces Agreement. I linked it a few pages back.

And let’s say you’re right. That adds a nuance, but it doesn’t change a thing about my point here.

But anyway, please cite the relevant portion of the SOFA.[/quote]

The agreement does state that “all United States forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory” by the end of 2011. The barely disguised intent, however, is that the terms will be renegotiated beforehand to sanction an enduring American presence. The associated “Strategic Framework Agreement,” which was signed between the Bush administration and the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on November 28, commits both parties to a “long term relationship in economic, diplomatic, cultural and security fields”.

In three years time, the Iraqi security forces will still be incapable of conducting operations against significant insurgent activity without American support, let alone defending Iraq’s borders against potential regional rivals…

John Nagl, a retired US officer who assisted General David Petraeus draft the counter-insurgency plan applied in Iraq, told the Washington Post last month: “Everyone knows the Iraqi security forces are not going to be self-sufficient by 2011. There are going to be Americans helping Iraqis keep their F-16s in the air for at least a decade.” The Iraqi ministry of defence has stated that the earliest it will have an “independent” air force is 2020.

Moreover, in dealing with “external or internal threats,” the Strategic Framework sanctions the US to use “diplomatic, economic or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat”.

My apologies for the source.

179

[quote]Bismark wrote:

What were the intervening variables in the Iraqi security environment when US combat forces began their withdraw? You asset that the country was largely pacified in 2008 as a result of the surge, of which I agree led to significant gains.

[/quote]

It was. Due to US forces. The insurgency reached its lowest point in 2010 with an average of 10 car bombings a month. By 2013 after US forces had left car bombings were up to an average of 68 a months. Now ISIS has launched an all out assault.

See above.

[quote]

Did top US military and intelligence officers express their belief that Iraq would again devolve after the pacifying influence of US forces receded? [/quote]

Absolutely they did. Want me to dig out some quotes from the top brass?

180

@Bismark

I have a question for you. In 1960 RAND strategist Herman Kahn developed a nuclear strategy based on the Mutually Assured Destruction theory. His idea was to link a computer to a series of hydrogen bombs programmed to detonate upon the detection of an enemy launch. These bombs were designed to spread nuclear fallout across the entire planet and destroy all life on earth.

The key principle of the device was that it cannot be turned off or stopped. The theory being that the enemy would never launch a first strike knowing that this device was in place. Do you think it’s a sound strategy? You’ve said previously that Iran is a “rational actor.” Do you think such a device would constitute a good deterrent against an Iranian nuclear strike?