Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OS 11073103You're conflating two issues and trying to make them one.
First of all Camp is exactly correct here: 11072964Which military advisors, former officers, etc. advised that troops be left in Iraq without a renewed SOFA? Of course you can name the ones who gave the simple opinion and advice to leave troops, but that is easy for a person not in control and responsible for the decision and when the little caveat about the SOFA is ignored. So, give us the name or names of the military advisers that told him to leave troops in Iraq despite the Iraqi governments refusal to grant a new SOFA.
But your point Oldstyle is invalid. There is no separation of continuing a troop presence and having a legal agreement with the host country's granting immunity for those troops.
Iraq was not going to grant immunity and the US was not going to keep one single troop there without it. It's called an impasse. One impasse that could never have been overcome.,
Just so your are aware, Obama authorized the tripling of US troops in Afghanistan within his first year, which alienated the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party including many members of the Congressional black caucus. Early Spring 2009 Obama authorized the largest US Marine air to ground assault into Helmand and Kandahar Province since the Vietnam war. Obama has never catered to or tried to please the anti war wing of his party.
So let me get this straight...George W. Bush was able to work out a SOFA. Yet for Barack Obama this is an "impasse that could never have been overcome"?
11074189So let me get this straight...George W. Bush was able to work out a SOFA. Yet for Barack Obama this is an "impasse that could never have been overcome"?
Bush was able to work out SOFA in 2008 that was mostly concessions to Iraqis demands when he had 150,000 troops still in the country. Immunity was an issue then and almost scuttled the deal which would have meant that 150,000 troops would have to be airlifted out by January 1 2009. The Iraqis were not ready to handle their own security that soon but Bush agreed that by January 1 2012 they would be. So he made the deal. He failed tonge tab long term deal with basing right like he originally wanted.
The situation was quite different by 2011 -.troops were withdrawn at a steady pace according to the Bush deal. And since Bush set 2012 as the end of immunity the Iraqis saw no reason to concede immunity this time,
And Maliki had filled up the army with his cronies in the officer corp and he and Tehran were satisfied that the Bush deadline was the perfect time to send all troops packing for home. It was an impasse that could not be overcome. The Iraqi parliament had not near enough votes and that was public record at the time.
In 2008 the votes were there because Iraq's army was not ready to stand on their own.
No matter how many times you claim that when Bush left Iraq, Iraq was stable, it will not be true. It shows that the root of your argument, the very foundation of your claim is a bold faced blatant lie that is an insult to all the veterans who served in Iraq after Bush left. In 2008, the last full year of Bush's control, 314 American military personnel were killed in action. The following year, Obama reduced the number to 149. That was further reduced in 2010 to 60 killed in action and in 2011 54 and finely, in 2012 to only 1. Your "stable" Iraq created by Bush was anything but stable. Over 10,000 Iraqi lives were being lost each year as the American forces turned over security to Iraqi forces. Civilian bombing were routine and Iraqi security forces were under constant attack. Bush left a huge mess in 2008 and '09 for both the US and Iraq to repair.The result is ISIS controlling vast areas of Iraq.
ISIS was formerly AQI which formed in Iraq about four years before Senator Obama ran for president. Then they were not destroyed by the Bush Administration. They simply moved into Syria and watched Bush get suckered into first the 2007 trap by Maliki when he sent a letter to the UN demanding that the US authority to operate combat operations in Iraq come to an end by December 2008.
The second trap was the 2008 trap that was set up by the first trap. Bush was forced to negotiate in one year a SOFA or else all troops had to leave by January 1, 2009. That was full advantage for Iraqis. They had Bush under their thumb and pressed hard to get all troops out US cities by June 2009 and all combat operations by US forces had to be approved in advance by Maliki.
The transformation from AQI to ISIS happened in Syria not Iraq anyway. There was no advice by generals to keep 24.000 troops in Syria in 2011 or thereafter.
Your storyline is quite,flawed Oldstyle - it really is.,
Have you ever mentioned immunity in one of your posts? Will you ever use that term in your lifetime?
What's "flawed" is your rather pathetic attempts to make Barack Obama's Middle East policy failures something that George Bush is at fault for! When Bush left office, Obama inherited a stable Iraq. Since that time Obama has managed to totally FUBAR not only Iraq but the entire Middle East. What he was lauding as a success just last year...Yemen...is now imploding. Syria is a disaster. Libya is a disaster. Iran is busily finishing off a nuke. He even tried to influence an Israeli election only to see that turn into another disaster.
Barack Obama is AWFUL when it comes to foreign policy. The longer he stays in office the worse things become. I dare you to find a single foreign policy of Barry's that's been successful. He's THAT BAD!
No matter how many times you claim that when Bush left Iraq, Iraq was stable, it will not be true. It shows that the root of your argument, the very foundation of your claim is a bold faced blatant lie that is an insult to all the veterans who served in Iraq after Bush left. In 2008, the last full year of Bush's control, 314 American military personnel were killed in action. The following year, Obama reduced the number to 149. That was further reduced in 2010 to 60 killed in action and in 2011 54 and finely, in 2012 to only 1. Your "stable" Iraq created by Bush was anything but stable. Over 10,000 Iraqi lives were being lost each year as the American forces turned over security to Iraqi forces. Civilian bombing were routine and Iraqi security forces were under constant attack. Bush left a huge mess in 2008 and '09 for both the US and Iraq to repair.The result is ISIS controlling vast areas of Iraq.
ISIS was formerly AQI which formed in Iraq about four years before Senator Obama ran for president. Then they were not destroyed by the Bush Administration. They simply moved into Syria and watched Bush get suckered into first the 2007 trap by Maliki when he sent a letter to the UN demanding that the US authority to operate combat operations in Iraq come to an end by December 2008.
The second trap was the 2008 trap that was set up by the first trap. Bush was forced to negotiate in one year a SOFA or else all troops had to leave by January 1, 2009. That was full advantage for Iraqis. They had Bush under their thumb and pressed hard to get all troops out US cities by June 2009 and all combat operations by US forces had to be approved in advance by Maliki.
The transformation from AQI to ISIS happened in Syria not Iraq anyway. There was no advice by generals to keep 24.000 troops in Syria in 2011 or thereafter.
Your storyline is quite,flawed Oldstyle - it really is.,
Have you ever mentioned immunity in one of your posts? Will you ever use that term in your lifetime?
What's "flawed" is your rather pathetic attempts to make Barack Obama's Middle East policy failures something that George Bush is at fault for! When Bush left office, Obama inherited a stable Iraq. Since that time Obama has managed to totally FUBAR not only Iraq but the entire Middle East. What he was lauding as a success just last year...Yemen...is now imploding. Syria is a disaster. Libya is a disaster. Iran is busily finishing off a nuke. He even tried to influence an Israeli election only to see that turn into another disaster.
Barack Obama is AWFUL when it comes to foreign policy. The longer he stays in office the worse things become. I dare you to find a single foreign policy of Barry's that's been successful. He's THAT BAD!
11074189So let me get this straight...George W. Bush was able to work out a SOFA. Yet for Barack Obama this is an "impasse that could never have been overcome"?
Bush was able to work out SOFA in 2008 that was mostly concessions to Iraqis demands when he had 150,000 troops still in the country. Immunity was an issue then and almost scuttled the deal which would have meant that 150,000 troops would have to be airlifted out by January 1 2009. The Iraqis were not ready to handle their own security that soon but Bush agreed that by January 1 2012 they would be. So he made the deal. He failed tonge tab long term deal with basing right like he originally wanted.
The situation was quite different by 2011 -.troops were withdrawn at a steady pace according to the Bush deal. And since Bush set 2012 as the end of immunity the Iraqis saw no reason to concede immunity this time,
And Maliki had filled up the army with his cronies in the officer corp and he and Tehran were satisfied that the Bush deadline was the perfect time to send all troops packing for home. It was an impasse that could not be overcome. The Iraqi parliament had not near enough votes and that was public record at the time.
In 2008 the votes were there because Iraq's army was not ready to stand on their own.
In order to overcome ANYTHING you first have to try! Why would Obama try to get a new SOFA when he intended all along to withdraw American troops?
. ROMNEY: I'm sorry, you actually -- there was a -- there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with...
ROMNEY: ...that your posture. That was my posture as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops... ... I thought there should have been more troops, but you know what? The answer was we got. ... no troops through whatsoever.
. Nearly 15,000 soldiers are now deployed to Kuwait — including two brigade combat teams and a combat aviation brigade — as the mission there evolves and the U.S. works to maintain a combat-capable presence in the unstable region.
. "This is a larger contingent than we've typically had," a senior Army official, who spoke on background, told Army Times.
. Now, the U.S. has forces in Kuwait that are capable of responding to contingencies if needed, the official said.
. As of Jan. 5, soldiers from 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, of Fort Hood, Texas, and 1st BCT, 34th Infantry Division, of the Minnesota National Guard were the two primary brigade-sized units deployed to Kuwait.
. In addition, the 29th Combat Aviation Brigade from the Maryland National Guard also is in Kuwait, moving there after serving as the last CAB in Iraq.
. The 1st Cavalry Division brigade moved to Kuwait after serving the first half of its tour in Iraq and will remain in Kuwait until it completes a 12-month deployment this summer.
.The brigade will serve as the mobile response force in the Central Command area of responsibility, 1st Lt. Kelly McManus, spokeswoman for 1st BCT, 1st Cavalry Division, wrote in an email to Army Times.
. "We will operate with our standard equipment and in doing so provide a force that is both immediately available and augments a joint team that stands as a strong deterrent against those who wish to harm the U.S. and/or its allies," McManus said.
OS 11074189In order to overcome ANYTHING you first have to try! Why would Obama try to get a new SOFA when he intended all along to withdraw American troops?
He did not intend to withdraw all troops. Even Romney admitted it in a Presidential debate:
. ROMNEY: I'm sorry, you actually -- there was a -- there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with...
ROMNEY: ...that your posture. That was my posture as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops... ... I thought there should have been more troops, but you know what? The answer was we got. ... no troops through whatsoever.
CPD October 22 2012 Debate Transcript
And the bad news for you Oldstyle comes out of the Army Times:
Soldiers in Kuwait will act as response force
15,000 are staying in the tiny country, at least for now
Jan. 14, 2012 - 08:39AM | Last Updated: Jan. 14, 2012 - 08:39AM |
. Nearly 15,000 soldiers are now deployed to Kuwait — including two brigade combat teams and a combat aviation brigade — as the mission there evolves and the U.S. works to maintain a combat-capable presence in the unstable region.
. "This is a larger contingent than we've typically had," a senior Army official, who spoke on background, told Army Times.
. Now, the U.S. has forces in Kuwait that are capable of responding to contingencies if needed, the official said.
. As of Jan. 5, soldiers from 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, of Fort Hood, Texas, and 1st BCT, 34th Infantry Division, of the Minnesota National Guard were the two primary brigade-sized units deployed to Kuwait.
. In addition, the 29th Combat Aviation Brigade from the Maryland National Guard also is in Kuwait, moving there after serving as the last CAB in Iraq.
. The 1st Cavalry Division brigade moved to Kuwait after serving the first half of its tour in Iraq and will remain in Kuwait until it completes a 12-month deployment this summer.
.The brigade will serve as the mobile response force in the Central Command area of responsibility, 1st Lt. Kelly McManus, spokeswoman for 1st BCT, 1st Cavalry Division, wrote in an email to Army Times.
. "We will operate with our standard equipment and in doing so provide a force that is both immediately available and augments a joint team that stands as a strong deterrent against those who wish to harm the U.S. and/or its allies," McManus said.
Obama kept troops in the region - he did not bring every last troop home when it became clear the Iraqis were not going to extend immunity. So they move to where immunity would be granted - Kuwait.
Still, some of Obama's own generals advised against it and explained why. It is my belief that he ignored them due to his wanting to please his base.
A leader is supposed to have diplomacy and be able to come to deals with other leaders. That is all part of being the POTUS. Obama could have fought harder to come to a deal, but he did not.
So tell me, NotFooled...did that force in Kuwait do ANYTHING while ISIS was ravaging Iraq?
Since you claim "So Obama kept 5000 troops in Kuwait plus 10,000 more for rapid deployments if requested by Iraq. Obama did not abandon the region."
There are two issues here...
The first is Barack Obama's decision to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq despite being warned by his military advisers that doing so could create a power vacuum. That was done to give him something to run for reelection on.
The second is how progressives like you have seized on an expiring SOFA as the reason that Barry HAD to withdrawn all our troops. It's patently obvious to anyone who observed how tepid the Obama Administration's push for a new SOFA was, that they didn't really want one since they were determined to withdraw the troops anyways. Why would you pressure someone to give you something that you would never have a use for? Why would any Iraqi politician take the risky step of approving a SOFA that was going to be nothing more than window dressing anyways?
he first is Barack Obama's decision to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq despite being warned by his military advisers that doing so could create a power vacuum.
.Unko 11066745A LEADER would have listened to his generals and renegotiated a SOF agreement
Obama listened to every military adviser and every active and inactive duty General that told him not to negotiate a SOFA that did not have the same legal immunity as the Bush/Maliki SOFA of 2008. The Iraqis refused to budge on the immunity issue. That is a natter of historical record that you are ignoring or deny that it exists. Why do you base your opinion on denial of a major crucial fact. The Iraqis would not sign or pass a SOFA in 2011 that contained legal immunity for US troops. That is the reality you miss.
News discussions - Boston.com
Key general Iraq pullout plan a disaster - Washington Times
George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal - CBS News
President Bush Warned Obama Not to Pull Out of Iraq Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
Be warned America s withdrawal from Iraq heralds a world of instability John Bolton World news The Guardian
So tell me, NotFooled...did that force in Kuwait do ANYTHING while ISIS was ravaging Iraq?
Iraq had to invite them in. Maliki did not make a request for ground combat troops ever. Obama put conditions on Maliki's requests for airstrikes on treating Sunnis better. Maliki did not follow through.
Do you expect Obama to support a leader that was corrupt and partisan with air strikes. Maliki is gone. The new PM is doing a better job.
