Explain Something To Me

[toomuchtime_]

Trump wanted to cut-and-run in 2007. The very kind of thing you and Trump now say "created ISIS".

How Trump can whine today about "the way we left Iraq" and how can he whine about the cutting and running which "created ISIS" when he was one of the people who wanted to cut-and-run?

There was a big difference between Iraq in 2007 and Iraq in 2011. 2006 had been the worst year of the war and the senior staff of the Pentagon offered little hope things would improve, so showing boldness and great strength of character, Bush began interviewing his generals asking the how they would overcome the difficulties in Iraq. Only Petraeus had a plan, and so Bush promoted him over the heads of more senior generals so he could take command in Iraq. By the time Petraeus reported to Congress on the progress he had made, some people were still thinking about how bad things had been in 2006 and the Democrats had already decided opposition to the war would be a major talking point in 2008, so success in Iraq would work against their political interests and failure in Iraq would work in their favor, as Hillary's bizarre outburst in the Senate clearly exemplifies.

By the time Obama took office, Iraq had been stabilized politically, had become a democracy in an astonishingly short time, the extremists had become nuisances rather than threats and Iraqi forces did nearly all the fighting that was necessary with US only providing support, but that support was critically importatnt; it prevented the largely Shi'ite government from persecuting the Sunni, it gave the Sunni confidence that if they continued to resist al Qaeda, the US would be right there to support them and it gave Iraq's PM assurance that if he resisted Iran's influence, the US would be right there to support him. The Pentagon advised Obama that to maintain these conditions 30,000 US troops would have to remain, but the Democrats had run on the promise that all US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and as the 2012 elections drew closer, Obama decided that it was more important for him to be elected to a second term than for the peace in Iraq to be maintained of for al Qaeda to be held in check, so he announced that Iraq was now so stable and able to take care of all its issues, US troops were no longer needed there, knowing full well this wasn't true, and in that way Obama created ISIS.

So the fact that Trump was wrong in 2007 about the value of the surge has nothing to do with him being right about Obama creating ISIS by withdrawing US troops in 2011.

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

I was over there on active duty. I have no doubt in my military mind that we would have had to fight Hussein again, sooner or later. He wanted a fight, and he was going to get one.

My only problem with Bush on that front is the inept way he prosecuted the war.

Actually, the war with Saddam was won quickly and relatively cheaply, but it was the aftermath of the war that was the problem. Once Saddam was gone, the US couldn't leave without Iraq collapsing into sectarian war which would have threatened the entire region, but no one knew what to do until Petraeus came along with his plan. His plan was both simple and brilliant. He recognized that stationing US troops in massive bases meant they could only respond to fighting among the factions after it broke out and would then have to retreat to their bases but stationing them among the Iraqi people would allow them to prevent fighting. It would require more manpower, hence the surge, and would produce higher US casualties at first, but would eventually mean US troops would only have to provide support instead of fighting.

Just “more US casualties”….for WMDs that didn’t exist.

More US casualties for a short time in order to establish the peace Obama later destroyed.

 

[Correll]

There was a big difference between Iraq in 2007 and Iraq in 2011. 2006 had been the worst year of the war and the senior staff of the Pentagon offered little hope things would improve, so showing boldness and great strength of character, Bush began interviewing his generals asking the how they would overcome the difficulties in Iraq. Only Petraeus had a plan, and so Bush promoted him over the heads of more senior generals so he could take command in Iraq. By the time Petraeus reported to Congress on the progress he had made, some people were still thinking about how bad things had been in 2006 and the Democrats had already decided opposition to the war would be a major talking point in 2008, so success in Iraq would work against their political interests and failure in Iraq would work in their favor, as Hillary's bizarre outburst in the Senate clearly exemplifies.

By the time Obama took office, Iraq had been stabilized politically, had become a democracy in an astonishingly short time, the extremists had become nuisances rather than threats and Iraqi forces did nearly all the fighting that was necessary with US only providing support, but that support was critically importatnt; it prevented the largely Shi'ite government from persecuting the Sunni, it gave the Sunni confidence that if they continued to resist al Qaeda, the US would be right there to support them and it gave Iraq's PM assurance that if he resisted Iran's influence, the US would be right there to support him. The Pentagon advised Obama that to maintain these conditions 30,000 US troops would have to remain, but the Democrats had run on the promise that all US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and as the 2012 elections drew closer, Obama decided that it was more important for him to be elected to a second term than for the peace in Iraq to be maintained of for al Qaeda to be held in check, so he announced that Iraq was now so stable and able to take care of all its issues, US troops were no longer needed there, knowing full well this wasn't true, and in that way Obama created ISIS.

So the fact that Trump was wrong in 2007 about the value of the surge has nothing to do with him being right about Obama creating ISIS by withdrawing US troops in 2011.

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

Then what you are saying is that Obama is a liar because with Hillary standing at his side he claimed he was withdrawing the troops because things were so good in Iraq US troops were no longer needed.

It was 3-4 years later in the first place.
In the 2nd place, there was no longer a threat of Iraq using WMDs…

As you may recall, that was the lie we were told to go in there to start with.

The biggest lie was the untold truth. The lie of omission.

I said before the invasion that it was going to be at least a ten year grind. But Bush knew he couldn't sell a ten year war that would carry over into the next Administration. So he made it sound like we would all be home by Christmas, like so many other assholes at the top in the past.

Remember how McCain was virulently attacked for saying we might have to occupy for 50 years? He was telling the truth, and the American people didn't like to hear the truth at all.

There was no lie of omission, just incredible naivete. Bush and his advisers had assumed that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi people would rush to convene and organize a new government, but they had grossly underestimated the the extent t which Saddam had terrorized the Iraqi people and the depth of the animosity that existed between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds. It was this animosity among these factions that should have been expected but wasn't that Petraeus' plan put under control and allowed Iraq to become a relatively, for that part of the world, peaceful nation and a functioning democracy. So while there were many mistakes along the way, ultimately the war was a success until Obama destroyed to assure his reelection in 2012.

The underlying flaw, that is still widely believed is that there is a huge yearning in the Arab World for Democracy and that one of the reasons that dictatorships survive is because of "Support" from US.

 

[candycorn]

There was a big difference between Iraq in 2007 and Iraq in 2011. 2006 had been the worst year of the war and the senior staff of the Pentagon offered little hope things would improve, so showing boldness and great strength of character, Bush began interviewing his generals asking the how they would overcome the difficulties in Iraq. Only Petraeus had a plan, and so Bush promoted him over the heads of more senior generals so he could take command in Iraq. By the time Petraeus reported to Congress on the progress he had made, some people were still thinking about how bad things had been in 2006 and the Democrats had already decided opposition to the war would be a major talking point in 2008, so success in Iraq would work against their political interests and failure in Iraq would work in their favor, as Hillary's bizarre outburst in the Senate clearly exemplifies.

By the time Obama took office, Iraq had been stabilized politically, had become a democracy in an astonishingly short time, the extremists had become nuisances rather than threats and Iraqi forces did nearly all the fighting that was necessary with US only providing support, but that support was critically importatnt; it prevented the largely Shi'ite government from persecuting the Sunni, it gave the Sunni confidence that if they continued to resist al Qaeda, the US would be right there to support them and it gave Iraq's PM assurance that if he resisted Iran's influence, the US would be right there to support him. The Pentagon advised Obama that to maintain these conditions 30,000 US troops would have to remain, but the Democrats had run on the promise that all US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and as the 2012 elections drew closer, Obama decided that it was more important for him to be elected to a second term than for the peace in Iraq to be maintained of for al Qaeda to be held in check, so he announced that Iraq was now so stable and able to take care of all its issues, US troops were no longer needed there, knowing full well this wasn't true, and in that way Obama created ISIS.

So the fact that Trump was wrong in 2007 about the value of the surge has nothing to do with him being right about Obama creating ISIS by withdrawing US troops in 2011.

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

Then what you are saying is that Obama is a liar because with Hillary standing at his side he claimed he was withdrawing the troops because things were so good in Iraq US troops were no longer needed.

It was 3-4 years later in the first place.
In the 2nd place, there was no longer a threat of Iraq using WMDs…

As you may recall, that was the lie we were told to go in there to start with.

The biggest lie was the untold truth. The lie of omission.

I said before the invasion that it was going to be at least a ten year grind. But Bush knew he couldn't sell a ten year war that would carry over into the next Administration. So he made it sound like we would all be home by Christmas, like so many other assholes at the top in the past.

Remember how McCain was virulently attacked for saying we might have to occupy for 50 years? He was telling the truth, and the American people didn't like to hear the truth at all.

There was no lie of omission, just incredible naivete. Bush and his advisers had assumed that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi people would rush to convene and organize a new government, but they had grossly underestimated the the extent t which Saddam had terrorized the Iraqi people and the depth of the animosity that existed between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds. It was this animosity among these factions that should have been expected but wasn't that Petraeus' plan put under control and allowed Iraq to become a relatively, for that part of the world, peaceful nation and a functioning democracy. So while there were many mistakes along the way, ultimately the war was a success until Obama destroyed to assure his reelection in 2012.

So all we had to do is remain there, continue to lose dozens of soldiers each month, to be able to call it a “success” and pay $3.00+ a gallon for gasoline as we were doing during the war.

Man, I’d hate to see what losing was like…

 

[g5000]

1) Trump lies about his support for the invasion and attacks Clinton for supporting the invasion.

2) In 2007, Democrat Donald Trump called for Bush's impeachment. He was the picture of a raging "Bush lied, people died" liberal.

3) In 2007, limousine liberal Donald Trump (D-NY) opposed the surge. He demanded we cut-and-run.

That's your Democratic Republican candidate for President.

 

[candycorn]

There was a big difference between Iraq in 2007 and Iraq in 2011. 2006 had been the worst year of the war and the senior staff of the Pentagon offered little hope things would improve, so showing boldness and great strength of character, Bush began interviewing his generals asking the how they would overcome the difficulties in Iraq. Only Petraeus had a plan, and so Bush promoted him over the heads of more senior generals so he could take command in Iraq. By the time Petraeus reported to Congress on the progress he had made, some people were still thinking about how bad things had been in 2006 and the Democrats had already decided opposition to the war would be a major talking point in 2008, so success in Iraq would work against their political interests and failure in Iraq would work in their favor, as Hillary's bizarre outburst in the Senate clearly exemplifies.

By the time Obama took office, Iraq had been stabilized politically, had become a democracy in an astonishingly short time, the extremists had become nuisances rather than threats and Iraqi forces did nearly all the fighting that was necessary with US only providing support, but that support was critically importatnt; it prevented the largely Shi'ite government from persecuting the Sunni, it gave the Sunni confidence that if they continued to resist al Qaeda, the US would be right there to support them and it gave Iraq's PM assurance that if he resisted Iran's influence, the US would be right there to support him. The Pentagon advised Obama that to maintain these conditions 30,000 US troops would have to remain, but the Democrats had run on the promise that all US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and as the 2012 elections drew closer, Obama decided that it was more important for him to be elected to a second term than for the peace in Iraq to be maintained of for al Qaeda to be held in check, so he announced that Iraq was now so stable and able to take care of all its issues, US troops were no longer needed there, knowing full well this wasn't true, and in that way Obama created ISIS.

So the fact that Trump was wrong in 2007 about the value of the surge has nothing to do with him being right about Obama creating ISIS by withdrawing US troops in 2011.

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

I was over there on active duty. I have no doubt in my military mind that we would have had to fight Hussein again, sooner or later. He wanted a fight, and he was going to get one.

My only problem with Bush on that front is the inept way he prosecuted the war.

Actually, the war with Saddam was won quickly and relatively cheaply, but it was the aftermath of the war that was the problem. Once Saddam was gone, the US couldn't leave without Iraq collapsing into sectarian war which would have threatened the entire region, but no one knew what to do until Petraeus came along with his plan. His plan was both simple and brilliant. He recognized that stationing US troops in massive bases meant they could only respond to fighting among the factions after it broke out and would then have to retreat to their bases but stationing them among the Iraqi people would allow them to prevent fighting. It would require more manpower, hence the surge, and would produce higher US casualties at first, but would eventually mean US troops would only have to provide support instead of fighting.

Just “more US casualties”….for WMDs that didn’t exist.

More US casualties for a short time in order to establish the peace Obama later destroyed.

Establish Peace. Tell us another joke.

Funny thought unless you try to do it. The issue is religion. There is no negotiating a religious war with fanatics; many of whom are willing to die for their faith. This is what makes Trump’s idiotic “nobody will mess with us” bullshit so staggeringly dense; you think a suicide bomber cares about what happens after they are dead?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Trump outlined Obama's Iraq incorrect strategy: Declare victory and leave.

I think the consequences of that are pretty obvious

And yet you're voting for Trump? He would of done the same thing with Iraq as he wouldn't of kept troops in that country and that would of allowed for the isis to take over..

 

[toomuchtime_]

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

Then what you are saying is that Obama is a liar because with Hillary standing at his side he claimed he was withdrawing the troops because things were so good in Iraq US troops were no longer needed.

It was 3-4 years later in the first place.
In the 2nd place, there was no longer a threat of Iraq using WMDs…

As you may recall, that was the lie we were told to go in there to start with.

The biggest lie was the untold truth. The lie of omission.

I said before the invasion that it was going to be at least a ten year grind. But Bush knew he couldn't sell a ten year war that would carry over into the next Administration. So he made it sound like we would all be home by Christmas, like so many other assholes at the top in the past.

Remember how McCain was virulently attacked for saying we might have to occupy for 50 years? He was telling the truth, and the American people didn't like to hear the truth at all.

There was no lie of omission, just incredible naivete. Bush and his advisers had assumed that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi people would rush to convene and organize a new government, but they had grossly underestimated the the extent t which Saddam had terrorized the Iraqi people and the depth of the animosity that existed between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds. It was this animosity among these factions that should have been expected but wasn't that Petraeus' plan put under control and allowed Iraq to become a relatively, for that part of the world, peaceful nation and a functioning democracy. So while there were many mistakes along the way, ultimately the war was a success until Obama destroyed to assure his reelection in 2012.

The underlying flaw, that is still widely believed is that there is a huge yearning in the Arab World for Democracy and that one of the reasons that dictatorships survive is because of "Support" from US.

So what are you saying? Seen one Arab seen them all? There are huge differences among the various groups of Arabs and some are fighting to establish democracy without any outside help. Remember democracy in America and Europe was at first only limited to certain classes and races and religions and needed time to become universal.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What the fuck is the point of this thread other than "I hate Trump"?

 

[toomuchtime_]

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

Then what you are saying is that Obama is a liar because with Hillary standing at his side he claimed he was withdrawing the troops because things were so good in Iraq US troops were no longer needed.

It was 3-4 years later in the first place.
In the 2nd place, there was no longer a threat of Iraq using WMDs…

As you may recall, that was the lie we were told to go in there to start with.

The biggest lie was the untold truth. The lie of omission.

I said before the invasion that it was going to be at least a ten year grind. But Bush knew he couldn't sell a ten year war that would carry over into the next Administration. So he made it sound like we would all be home by Christmas, like so many other assholes at the top in the past.

Remember how McCain was virulently attacked for saying we might have to occupy for 50 years? He was telling the truth, and the American people didn't like to hear the truth at all.

There was no lie of omission, just incredible naivete. Bush and his advisers had assumed that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi people would rush to convene and organize a new government, but they had grossly underestimated the the extent t which Saddam had terrorized the Iraqi people and the depth of the animosity that existed between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds. It was this animosity among these factions that should have been expected but wasn't that Petraeus' plan put under control and allowed Iraq to become a relatively, for that part of the world, peaceful nation and a functioning democracy. So while there were many mistakes along the way, ultimately the war was a success until Obama destroyed to assure his reelection in 2012.

So all we had to do is remain there, continue to lose dozens of soldiers each month, to be able to call it a “success” and pay $3.00+ a gallon for gasoline as we were doing during the war.

Man, I’d hate to see what losing was like…

By the time Obama withdrew US troops to boost his reelection prospects in 2012, casting the region into a bloody sectarian war, there were only rare US casualties.

 

[ChrisL]

Trump outlined Obama's Iraq incorrect strategy: Declare victory and leave.

I think the consequences of that are pretty obvious

And yet you're voting for Trump? He would of done the same thing with Iraq as he wouldn't of kept troops in that country and that would of allowed for the isis to take over..

Would "have." Not "would of." Why listen to someone who doesn't know 3rd grade grammar?

 

[Correll]

Then what you are saying is that Obama is a liar because with Hillary standing at his side he claimed he was withdrawing the troops because things were so good in Iraq US troops were no longer needed.

It was 3-4 years later in the first place.
In the 2nd place, there was no longer a threat of Iraq using WMDs…

As you may recall, that was the lie we were told to go in there to start with.

The biggest lie was the untold truth. The lie of omission.

I said before the invasion that it was going to be at least a ten year grind. But Bush knew he couldn't sell a ten year war that would carry over into the next Administration. So he made it sound like we would all be home by Christmas, like so many other assholes at the top in the past.

Remember how McCain was virulently attacked for saying we might have to occupy for 50 years? He was telling the truth, and the American people didn't like to hear the truth at all.

There was no lie of omission, just incredible naivete. Bush and his advisers had assumed that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi people would rush to convene and organize a new government, but they had grossly underestimated the the extent t which Saddam had terrorized the Iraqi people and the depth of the animosity that existed between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds. It was this animosity among these factions that should have been expected but wasn't that Petraeus' plan put under control and allowed Iraq to become a relatively, for that part of the world, peaceful nation and a functioning democracy. So while there were many mistakes along the way, ultimately the war was a success until Obama destroyed to assure his reelection in 2012.

The underlying flaw, that is still widely believed is that there is a huge yearning in the Arab World for Democracy and that one of the reasons that dictatorships survive is because of "Support" from US.

So what are you saying? Seen one Arab seen them all? There are huge differences among the various groups of Arabs and some are fighting to establish democracy without any outside help. Remember democracy in America and Europe was at first only limited to certain classes and races and religions and needed time to become universal.

Iraq is not "one arab". It is a nation that was argued, convincingly that was yearning for democracy and once we liberated it, the people would be grateful and quickly become a liberals modern western style democracy.


That was incorrect.


The tendency in the Arab World is a tyranny, and it is not our fault.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

I was over there on active duty. I have no doubt in my military mind that we would have had to fight Hussein again, sooner or later. He wanted a fight, and he was going to get one.

My only problem with Bush on that front is the inept way he prosecuted the war.

Actually, the war with Saddam was won quickly and relatively cheaply, but it was the aftermath of the war that was the problem. Once Saddam was gone, the US couldn't leave without Iraq collapsing into sectarian war which would have threatened the entire region, but no one knew what to do until Petraeus came along with his plan. His plan was both simple and brilliant. He recognized that stationing US troops in massive bases meant they could only respond to fighting among the factions after it broke out and would then have to retreat to their bases but stationing them among the Iraqi people would allow them to prevent fighting. It would require more manpower, hence the surge, and would produce higher US casualties at first, but would eventually mean US troops would only have to provide support instead of fighting.

Just “more US casualties”….for WMDs that didn’t exist.

More US casualties for a short time in order to establish the peace Obama later destroyed.

Establish Peace. Tell us another joke.

Funny thought unless you try to do it. The issue is religion. There is no negotiating a religious war with fanatics; many of whom are willing to die for their faith. This is what makes Trump’s idiotic “nobody will mess with us” bullshit so staggeringly dense; you think a suicide bomber cares about what happens after they are dead?

Again, you are calling Obama a liar when he said Iraq had become peaceful.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What the fuck is the point of this thread other than "I hate Trump"?

That's pretty much all the Clinton campaign has to say to the American people.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It was 3-4 years later in the first place.
In the 2nd place, there was no longer a threat of Iraq using WMDs…

As you may recall, that was the lie we were told to go in there to start with.

The biggest lie was the untold truth. The lie of omission.

I said before the invasion that it was going to be at least a ten year grind. But Bush knew he couldn't sell a ten year war that would carry over into the next Administration. So he made it sound like we would all be home by Christmas, like so many other assholes at the top in the past.

Remember how McCain was virulently attacked for saying we might have to occupy for 50 years? He was telling the truth, and the American people didn't like to hear the truth at all.

There was no lie of omission, just incredible naivete. Bush and his advisers had assumed that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi people would rush to convene and organize a new government, but they had grossly underestimated the the extent t which Saddam had terrorized the Iraqi people and the depth of the animosity that existed between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds. It was this animosity among these factions that should have been expected but wasn't that Petraeus' plan put under control and allowed Iraq to become a relatively, for that part of the world, peaceful nation and a functioning democracy. So while there were many mistakes along the way, ultimately the war was a success until Obama destroyed to assure his reelection in 2012.

The underlying flaw, that is still widely believed is that there is a huge yearning in the Arab World for Democracy and that one of the reasons that dictatorships survive is because of "Support" from US.

So what are you saying? Seen one Arab seen them all? There are huge differences among the various groups of Arabs and some are fighting to establish democracy without any outside help. Remember democracy in America and Europe was at first only limited to certain classes and races and religions and needed time to become universal.

Iraq is not "one arab". It is a nation that was argued, convincingly that was yearning for democracy and once we liberated it, the people would be grateful and quickly become a liberals modern western style democracy.


That was incorrect.


The tendency in the Arab World is a tyranny, and it is not our fault.

In fact, today, Iraq is a functioning democracy despite all of its problems.

 

[Correll]

The biggest lie was the untold truth. The lie of omission.

I said before the invasion that it was going to be at least a ten year grind. But Bush knew he couldn't sell a ten year war that would carry over into the next Administration. So he made it sound like we would all be home by Christmas, like so many other assholes at the top in the past.

Remember how McCain was virulently attacked for saying we might have to occupy for 50 years? He was telling the truth, and the American people didn't like to hear the truth at all.

There was no lie of omission, just incredible naivete. Bush and his advisers had assumed that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi people would rush to convene and organize a new government, but they had grossly underestimated the the extent t which Saddam had terrorized the Iraqi people and the depth of the animosity that existed between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds. It was this animosity among these factions that should have been expected but wasn't that Petraeus' plan put under control and allowed Iraq to become a relatively, for that part of the world, peaceful nation and a functioning democracy. So while there were many mistakes along the way, ultimately the war was a success until Obama destroyed to assure his reelection in 2012.

The underlying flaw, that is still widely believed is that there is a huge yearning in the Arab World for Democracy and that one of the reasons that dictatorships survive is because of "Support" from US.

So what are you saying? Seen one Arab seen them all? There are huge differences among the various groups of Arabs and some are fighting to establish democracy without any outside help. Remember democracy in America and Europe was at first only limited to certain classes and races and religions and needed time to become universal.

Iraq is not "one arab". It is a nation that was argued, convincingly that was yearning for democracy and once we liberated it, the people would be grateful and quickly become a liberals modern western style democracy.


That was incorrect.


The tendency in the Arab World is a tyranny, and it is not our fault.

In fact, today, Iraq is a functioning democracy despite all of its problems.

It was supposed to be easy.


Because the Iraqi people yearned to breath free and would be grateful to us for freeing them from Saddam.


We should never try to do this again.

 

[BlindBoo]

Without question, if the US had remained in Iraq as the Pentagon urged, ISIS would never have been created. So it is fair to say that when Obama withdrew US troops from Iraq against the advice of the Pentagon so that he would not to into the 2012 election being accused of breaking the main promise from 2008, he created ISIS. Nothing in your post suggests otherwise.

So what's your point?

That Trump misjudged the effectiveness of Petraeus' plan in 2007? Most of the senior staff at the Pentagon did; that's why Bush promoted him ahead of more senior generals so he could take command in Iraq. And let's not forget Hillary's outburst in the Senate:

'In a September 2007 congressional inquiry about the ongoing surge in Iraq, then Senator Hillary Clinton all but called Gen. David Petraeus a liar. After Petraeus gave a cautiously optimistic—and prescient—appraisal of the growing quiet in Iraq, Clinton curtly dismissed him with the literary term “suspension of disbelief,” which describes the creation of a fantasy world. Clinton sarcastically rebutted Petraeus’s quite accurate data with the curt dismissal, “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”'

Hillary Clinton and the Suspension of Disbelief | RealClearPolitics

So Trump was wrong about the surge but he was right about Obama creating ISIS with Clinton at his side, but the most interesting thing about your post is that even back in 2007, major media outlets wanted Trump's input on the important issues of the day.

Trump wanted to cut-and-run in 2007. The very kind of thing you and Trump now say "created ISIS".

How Trump can whine today about "the way we left Iraq" and how can he whine about the cutting and running which "created ISIS" when he was one of the people who wanted to cut-and-run?

There was a big difference between Iraq in 2007 and Iraq in 2011. 2006 had been the worst year of the war and the senior staff of the Pentagon offered little hope things would improve, so showing boldness and great strength of character, Bush began interviewing his generals asking the how they would overcome the difficulties in Iraq. Only Petraeus had a plan, and so Bush promoted him over the heads of more senior generals so he could take command in Iraq. By the time Petraeus reported to Congress on the progress he had made, some people were still thinking about how bad things had been in 2006 and the Democrats had already decided opposition to the war would be a major talking point in 2008, so success in Iraq would work against their political interests and failure in Iraq would work in their favor, as Hillary's bizarre outburst in the Senate clearly exemplifies.

By the time Obama took office, Iraq had been stabilized politically, had become a democracy in an astonishingly short time, the extremists had become nuisances rather than threats and Iraqi forces did nearly all the fighting that was necessary with US only providing support, but that support was critically importatnt; it prevented the largely Shi'ite government from persecuting the Sunni, it gave the Sunni confidence that if they continued to resist al Qaeda, the US would be right there to support them and it gave Iraq's PM assurance that if he resisted Iran's influence, the US would be right there to support him. The Pentagon advised Obama that to maintain these conditions 30,000 US troops would have to remain, but the Democrats had run on the promise that all US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and as the 2012 elections drew closer, Obama decided that it was more important for him to be elected to a second term than for the peace in Iraq to be maintained of for al Qaeda to be held in check, so he announced that Iraq was now so stable and able to take care of all its issues, US troops were no longer needed there, knowing full well this wasn't true, and in that way Obama created ISIS.

So the fact that Trump was wrong in 2007 about the value of the surge has nothing to do with him being right about Obama creating ISIS by withdrawing US troops in 2011.

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

I was over there on active duty. I have no doubt in my military mind that we would have had to fight Hussein again, sooner or later. He wanted a fight, and he was going to get one.

My only problem with Bush on that front is the inept way he prosecuted the war.

Actually, the war with Saddam was won quickly and relatively cheaply, but it was the aftermath of the war that was the problem. Once Saddam was gone, the US couldn't leave without Iraq collapsing into sectarian war which would have threatened the entire region, but no one knew what to do until Petraeus came along with his plan. His plan was both simple and brilliant. He recognized that stationing US troops in massive bases meant they could only respond to fighting among the factions after it broke out and would then have to retreat to their bases but stationing them among the Iraqi people would allow them to prevent fighting. It would require more manpower, hence the surge, and would produce higher US casualties at first, but would eventually mean US troops would only have to provide support instead of fighting.

The occupation was the problem. President Bush had to ask the UN for help. It was that very UN that forced the issue in 2007 by not renewing the Occupation Mandate. Forcing the SOFA that spells out the timetable for the US withdrawal. The ultimate topper for the strategic blunder of invading and occupying Iraq.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There was no lie of omission, just incredible naivete. Bush and his advisers had assumed that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi people would rush to convene and organize a new government, but they had grossly underestimated the the extent t which Saddam had terrorized the Iraqi people and the depth of the animosity that existed between the Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurds. It was this animosity among these factions that should have been expected but wasn't that Petraeus' plan put under control and allowed Iraq to become a relatively, for that part of the world, peaceful nation and a functioning democracy. So while there were many mistakes along the way, ultimately the war was a success until Obama destroyed to assure his reelection in 2012.

The underlying flaw, that is still widely believed is that there is a huge yearning in the Arab World for Democracy and that one of the reasons that dictatorships survive is because of "Support" from US.

So what are you saying? Seen one Arab seen them all? There are huge differences among the various groups of Arabs and some are fighting to establish democracy without any outside help. Remember democracy in America and Europe was at first only limited to certain classes and races and religions and needed time to become universal.

Iraq is not "one arab". It is a nation that was argued, convincingly that was yearning for democracy and once we liberated it, the people would be grateful and quickly become a liberals modern western style democracy.


That was incorrect.


The tendency in the Arab World is a tyranny, and it is not our fault.

In fact, today, Iraq is a functioning democracy despite all of its problems.

It was supposed to be easy.


Because the Iraqi people yearned to breath free and would be grateful to us for freeing them from Saddam.


We should never try to do this again.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The underlying flaw, that is still widely believed is that there is a huge yearning in the Arab World for Democracy and that one of the reasons that dictatorships survive is because of "Support" from US.

So what are you saying? Seen one Arab seen them all? There are huge differences among the various groups of Arabs and some are fighting to establish democracy without any outside help. Remember democracy in America and Europe was at first only limited to certain classes and races and religions and needed time to become universal.

Iraq is not "one arab". It is a nation that was argued, convincingly that was yearning for democracy and once we liberated it, the people would be grateful and quickly become a liberals modern western style democracy.


That was incorrect.


The tendency in the Arab World is a tyranny, and it is not our fault.

In fact, today, Iraq is a functioning democracy despite all of its problems.

It was supposed to be easy.


Because the Iraqi people yearned to breath free and would be grateful to us for freeing them from Saddam.


We should never try to do this again.

It certainly wasn't easy, but Bush's plan had not been to create a democracy. He had longed believed Saddam had to go and he had apparently believed that Saddam had some wmd's and was trying to develop nukes, but his original plan had been to convene a meeting of the leaders of the various factions and allow them to decide how to move forward. But the factions chose to fight each other rather than to work together and eventually democracy became the only viable alternative to chaos and war. At this point nearly all the factions agreed democracy was the only viable option they had. That's pretty much how democracy came to Europe, also.

Colin Powell had said in reference to Iraq, you break it, you own it. Once the US had committed to the war, it would have been irresponsible to have pulled out without setting Iraq on a firm course to a stable future. Bush, despite all his mistakes, acted responsibly in this respect. Clinton and Obama did not act responsibly in Iraq or Libya or Syria.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I thought President Barry Kardashian made everything all better through his mere presence on the world stage?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump wanted to cut-and-run in 2007. The very kind of thing you and Trump now say "created ISIS".

How Trump can whine today about "the way we left Iraq" and how can he whine about the cutting and running which "created ISIS" when he was one of the people who wanted to cut-and-run?

There was a big difference between Iraq in 2007 and Iraq in 2011. 2006 had been the worst year of the war and the senior staff of the Pentagon offered little hope things would improve, so showing boldness and great strength of character, Bush began interviewing his generals asking the how they would overcome the difficulties in Iraq. Only Petraeus had a plan, and so Bush promoted him over the heads of more senior generals so he could take command in Iraq. By the time Petraeus reported to Congress on the progress he had made, some people were still thinking about how bad things had been in 2006 and the Democrats had already decided opposition to the war would be a major talking point in 2008, so success in Iraq would work against their political interests and failure in Iraq would work in their favor, as Hillary's bizarre outburst in the Senate clearly exemplifies.

By the time Obama took office, Iraq had been stabilized politically, had become a democracy in an astonishingly short time, the extremists had become nuisances rather than threats and Iraqi forces did nearly all the fighting that was necessary with US only providing support, but that support was critically importatnt; it prevented the largely Shi'ite government from persecuting the Sunni, it gave the Sunni confidence that if they continued to resist al Qaeda, the US would be right there to support them and it gave Iraq's PM assurance that if he resisted Iran's influence, the US would be right there to support him. The Pentagon advised Obama that to maintain these conditions 30,000 US troops would have to remain, but the Democrats had run on the promise that all US troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and as the 2012 elections drew closer, Obama decided that it was more important for him to be elected to a second term than for the peace in Iraq to be maintained of for al Qaeda to be held in check, so he announced that Iraq was now so stable and able to take care of all its issues, US troops were no longer needed there, knowing full well this wasn't true, and in that way Obama created ISIS.

So the fact that Trump was wrong in 2007 about the value of the surge has nothing to do with him being right about Obama creating ISIS by withdrawing US troops in 2011.

In the final 2 years of Bush II, we (the coalition) lost 1,200 people. It was hardly “stable” politically, militarily, or theologically. Had we kept the same number of troops there, they would still be getting picked off, captured, beheaded, etc…

In the meantime; nobody has come up with one good reason to spill a drop of American blood over there since 2003.

I was over there on active duty. I have no doubt in my military mind that we would have had to fight Hussein again, sooner or later. He wanted a fight, and he was going to get one.

My only problem with Bush on that front is the inept way he prosecuted the war.

Actually, the war with Saddam was won quickly and relatively cheaply, but it was the aftermath of the war that was the problem. Once Saddam was gone, the US couldn't leave without Iraq collapsing into sectarian war which would have threatened the entire region, but no one knew what to do until Petraeus came along with his plan. His plan was both simple and brilliant. He recognized that stationing US troops in massive bases meant they could only respond to fighting among the factions after it broke out and would then have to retreat to their bases but stationing them among the Iraqi people would allow them to prevent fighting. It would require more manpower, hence the surge, and would produce higher US casualties at first, but would eventually mean US troops would only have to provide support instead of fighting.

The occupation was the problem. President Bush had to ask the UN for help. It was that very UN that forced the issue in 2007 by not renewing the Occupation Mandate. Forcing the SOFA that spells out the timetable for the US withdrawal. The ultimate topper for the strategic blunder of invading and occupying Iraq.

Was the invasion a strategic blunder or just a political blunder? I'm not sure. One could certainly say that the withdrawal of US troops by Obama was a strategic blunder if it hadn't been done for political purposes without regard to the consequences. I would say the strategic blunder was Bush41's when he left Saddam in power and gave the UN more responsibility for maintaining the sanctions and the containment of Iraq than the UN was competent to handle.