Obama the wisest president since Kennedy, does it again!!

[Oldstyle]

And the following quote from Kohl inadvertently reveals what REALLY took place during talks about a new SOFA deal. You had the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department ALL arguing that we needed to get a new SOFA deal done so that we could keep a stabilizing force in Iraq and you had Barack Obama and a small group in the White House refusing to allow that to happen.

"Others claim the administration spent more time negotiating with itself than it did trying to get a deal from the Iraqis. Perhaps."

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

Even in his spin piece to fight back against the Panetta book, Kohl inadvertently reveals the truth about what took place.

 

[Bfgrn]

Idiot? You are a MORON.

First, BUSH, signed the the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government. The SOFA BUSH signed required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012.

Second, there was no "success" in Iraq...BUSH's invasion turned Iraq into a country devoid of a stable government and opened the door for A) Iran to ally with Iraq's Shi'ite majority and impose a regime of its own in Baghdad, and B) create a vacuum where ISIS could operate without an Iraqi army capable of defending Iraq.

Third, President Obama REFUSED to approve a new SOFA that would strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Fourth, the Iraqi government REFUSED to include the immunities in a new agreement.

Fifth, the "1960's neocon sheeple" are the MORONS who pushed for BUSH's war in Iraq. They are NOT liberals, or Democrats, or aligned with Obama. They belong to YOU and your ignorant ilk.

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

Yes, childish. Obama used that agreement as an excuse to blame bush knowing that following through on troop removal would lead to chaos and it has. He knew he could count on your ilk to come to his defense win that childish excuse.

WHY is it so hard for you to understand that Iraq is a sovereign nation? There was no possible SOFA agreement that Iraq would sign that would protect American soldiers from legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Yet George W. Bush...who you progressives have labeled the "village idiot...somehow managed to obtain a SOFA from Iraq...but it was IMPOSSIBLE for Barack Obama "the smartest President EVER!" according to progressive theology to do the same?

What Panetta revealed in his book was that Obama made little to no effort to ever obtain a new SOFA. That's the reality of what took place...despite the assurances of Colin Kahl!

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

I hate to once again point out the painfully obvious here, Bfgrn...but Leon Panetta's account of what happened leading up to the total withdrawal of US troops would have to be a total fabrication in order to make Colin Kahl's account believable.

So who do I believe...the former Secretary of Defense who Obama himself described as having an impeccable reputation...or an adviser to Barack Obama?

So, you would send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails?

Not surprised...

No, if I were the President I would have done the hard work to get a new SOFA from the Iraqis so that they could stay and protect the gains that we'd made in Iraq.

Barry simply walked away from Iraq and left that country to ISIS. He wanted to do the same thing in Afghanistan but it's FINALLY dawned on him that his policies have consequences and a complete troop pullout from there would simply hand over another country to ISIS or the Taliban. As soon as THAT happened, Sparky...there would have been a wave of reprisal killings for anyone who sided with the US. So how many times do you think Barry the Clueless can turn his back on our allies before NOBODY trusts the US anymore? With his track record would you back anything Obama was doing if you were a moderate in a Middle East nation?

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

You are parroting right wing bullshit OS...

WHAT don't you understand? All the "hard work" in the world was NOT going to create a SOFA that was favorable to the US. Too many Iraqi's despise America after we invaded, occupied and killed their citizens. We are NOT viewed as liberators, we are viewed as occupiers.

Panetta has a right to his opinion, but A) it is not his name that signs the bottom of a SOFA, and B) the insight of Colin H. Kahl carries much more weight. He was an integral part of the negotiations. C) When the SOFA Bush hastily signed in 2008 expired in 2011, ISIS in Iraq was not even on the radar screen.

The blame for Iraq falls squarely on Bush, not Obama...the moment he invaded Iraq, HE owned it.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

So let me see if I follow your argument here...

A U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East supposedly knows more about the SOFA negotiations than the man who was Director of the CIA or Secretary of Defense during the time period in question? Really, Bfgrn? LOL

It's obvious that the Obama Administration trotted a junior level Administration adviser out to try and do damage control to Panetta's expose of Obama's failure of policy in Iraq. Kahl's piece is nothing more than a rather limp attempt to excuse Barack Obama's total lack of effort to obtain a new SOFA.

YES. He was DIRECTLY involved in THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

What you CAN'T comprehend is that IRAQ WAS NOT GOING TO offer a SOFA that gave our sons and daughters the immunities and protections needed to keep them out of Iraqi jails.

And the SOFA Bush signed and DID NOT take to Congress was WEAK on those immunities and protections.

 

[Oldstyle]

That is a just obama excuse bullshit. Childish argument.
Just because the possibility for an end to hostilities exists doesn't mean it's prudent to follow through on without concerning the consequences.

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

Yes, childish. Obama used that agreement as an excuse to blame bush knowing that following through on troop removal would lead to chaos and it has. He knew he could count on your ilk to come to his defense win that childish excuse.

WHY is it so hard for you to understand that Iraq is a sovereign nation? There was no possible SOFA agreement that Iraq would sign that would protect American soldiers from legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Yet George W. Bush...who you progressives have labeled the "village idiot...somehow managed to obtain a SOFA from Iraq...but it was IMPOSSIBLE for Barack Obama "the smartest President EVER!" according to progressive theology to do the same?

What Panetta revealed in his book was that Obama made little to no effort to ever obtain a new SOFA. That's the reality of what took place...despite the assurances of Colin Kahl!

I hate to once again point out the painfully obvious here, Bfgrn...but Leon Panetta's account of what happened leading up to the total withdrawal of US troops would have to be a total fabrication in order to make Colin Kahl's account believable.

So who do I believe...the former Secretary of Defense who Obama himself described as having an impeccable reputation...or an adviser to Barack Obama?

So, you would send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails?

Not surprised...

No, if I were the President I would have done the hard work to get a new SOFA from the Iraqis so that they could stay and protect the gains that we'd made in Iraq.

Barry simply walked away from Iraq and left that country to ISIS. He wanted to do the same thing in Afghanistan but it's FINALLY dawned on him that his policies have consequences and a complete troop pullout from there would simply hand over another country to ISIS or the Taliban. As soon as THAT happened, Sparky...there would have been a wave of reprisal killings for anyone who sided with the US. So how many times do you think Barry the Clueless can turn his back on our allies before NOBODY trusts the US anymore? With his track record would you back anything Obama was doing if you were a moderate in a Middle East nation?

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

You are parroting right wing bullshit OS...

WHAT don't you understand? All the "hard work" in the world was NOT going to create a SOFA that was favorable to the US. Too many Iraqi's despise America after we invaded, occupied and killed their citizens. We are NOT viewed as liberators, we are viewed as occupiers.

Panetta has a right to his opinion, but A) it is not his name that signs the bottom of a SOFA, and B) the insight of Colin H. Kahl carries much more weight. He was an integral part of the negotiations. C) When the SOFA Bush hastily signed in 2008 expired in 2011, ISIS in Iraq was not even on the radar screen.

The blame for Iraq falls squarely on Bush, not Obama...the moment he invaded Iraq, HE owned it.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

So let me see if I follow your argument here...

A U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East supposedly knows more about the SOFA negotiations than the man who was Director of the CIA or Secretary of Defense during the time period in question? Really, Bfgrn? LOL

It's obvious that the Obama Administration trotted a junior level Administration adviser out to try and do damage control to Panetta's expose of Obama's failure of policy in Iraq. Kahl's piece is nothing more than a rather limp attempt to excuse Barack Obama's total lack of effort to obtain a new SOFA.

YES. He was DIRECTLY involved in THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

What you CAN'T comprehend is that IRAQ WAS NOT GOING TO offer a SOFA that gave our sons and daughters the immunities and protections needed to keep them out of Iraqi jails.

And the SOFA Bush signed and DID NOT take to Congress was WEAK on those immunities and protections.

So you really DO think that a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense knew more about our negotiations with Iraq than Leon Panetta, the actual Secretary of Defense, did? That's amusing...really...

What Panetta pointed out was that Iraq was never going to offer us a SOFA deal if they felt that Barack Obama had no interest in keeping troops in Iraq to start with. Why would they? Why would any Iraqi politician vote for something that was unpopular (even if they realized that it was needed!) when they saw zero desire on Obama's part to keep troops in Iraq? Why would Obama put in the hard work to get a SOFA deal done when he fully intended to pull the troops out prior to running for reelection? That was the reality of the situation, Bfgrn...despite subsequent attempts by Obama flunky Kohl, to paint it differently.

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'm amused by your characterization of the Bush SOFA as "weak" on immunities and protections. How "weak" was it compared to the Obama SOFA? Oh, that's right...Barry never got a deal period!

 

[Mertex]

Obama fails without his TelePrompter

That's a conservative lie. He has spoken many times without a teleprompter....you're just smarting because of the video showing what a doofus Bush was. Must hurt.

That video is a "lie"? Funny how when Bush stumbles over his lines in a speech...he's a "doofus" but when Obama turns into a babbling idiot when his teleprompter stops working...that's a "conservative lie". Come on, Mertex...admit it...in many ways Barry is nothing more than an anchor man reading material someone else wrote for him that MAKES him look intelligent. When you take away his "crutch" he shows that he doesn't even understand his own proposed legislation...which is understandable because he's never been smart enough to write good legislation...he ALWAYS has someone else do it for him.

Show me a video where Obama is stumbling all over himself when giving a speech. You're delusional.

Hahahaha, so you think this video is not real?

 

[Mertex]

It's probably fair to say that Obama and JFK's intellectual capabilities just now are about equal.

That sure doesn't fair well for Republicans...President Obama OWNED a room full of them at the 2010 House Republican retreat in Baltimore. It was so bad for Republicans that Fox News cut away before it was over.

Obama Goes To GOP Lions' Den -- And Mauls The Lions

Obama fails without his TelePrompter

That's a conservative lie. He has spoken many times without a teleprompter....you're just smarting because of the video showing what a doofus Bush was. Must hurt.

That video is a "lie"? Funny how when Bush stumbles over his lines in a speech...he's a "doofus" but when Obama turns into a babbling idiot when his teleprompter stops working...that's a "conservative lie". Come on, Mertex...admit it...in many ways Barry is nothing more than an anchor man reading material someone else wrote for him that MAKES him look intelligent. When you take away his "crutch" he shows that he doesn't even understand his own proposed legislation...which is understandable because he's never been smart enough to write good legislation...he ALWAYS has someone else do it for him.

WHAT video is a lie?

The one I just re-posted. I don't know how he thinks anyone was able to photoshop it........shows he's not too bright to begin with.

 

[Mertex]

I hate to once again point out the painfully obvious here, Bfgrn...but Leon Panetta's account of what happened leading up to the total withdrawal of US troops would have to be a total fabrication in order to make Colin Kahl's account believable.

So who do I believe...the former Secretary of Defense who Obama himself described as having an impeccable reputation...or an adviser to Barack Obama?

You're full of it. Here's another account of why Obama did the right thing. Conservatives continue to try and find ways to redeem George W. Bush of the biggest debacle of his presidency, but the experts know better. You and the rest of the conservatives who want to claim that Obama lost Iraq, are just blowing smoke.

Sec of State, Collin Powell warned Bush..."You break it, you own it"......Iraq remains broken and Bush owns it.


Obama Didn't Lose Iraq
Most Americans recognize that blame for the Iraq debacle lies with the Bush administration. It was a foolish, unnecessary war followed by a myopic, bungled occupation. No wonder Washington is finding benefits from its policy of being illusive at best.

Yet the leading cheerleaders for the war remain undaunted.

Of course, even they acknowledge that there have been problems. For instance, the Hoover Institution’s Fouad Ajami, a prominent defender of intervention in Iraq, admitted that as U.S. troops came home Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki “was beginning to erect a dictatorship bent on marginalizing the country’s Kurds and Sunni Arabs and even those among the Shiites who questioned his writ.” Moreover, Ajami cited an Iraqi cabinet minister who observed that “With all the money the U.S. has spent, you can go in Iraq and you can’t find one building or project built by the U.S. government.”

The Wall Street Journal editors acknowledged that Maliki “has an authoritarian streak.” Moreover, opined the paper, “the Iraq war is a cautionary tale about the difficulty democracies have in sustaining lengthy military campaigns for any goal short of national survival.”

However, the Bush administration most assuredly was not to blame for such frustrated expectations. Rather, neoconservatives teach that everything is Barack Obama’s fault, including Iraq.

Yes, he came into the conflict late. Yes, he followed the Bush administration’s withdrawal timetable and honored his predecessor’s agreement with the Maliki government. Yes, he implemented the wishes of the majority of Americans.

But so what? He could have kept U.S. forces in Iraq.

First, the Bush administration, with added clout resulting from full-scale occupation and extensive combat operations, failed to win Iraqi acquiescence for a long-term U.S. garrison. Washington’s influence was bound to wane as the new Iraqi government regained its sovereignty and took over its security.


Putting off negotiations over permanent bases reflected arrogance or incompetence—neither of which speaks well of the Bush administration—or an inability to implement such a policy, which explains the Obama administration’s approach.

Second, the American people wanted out of Iraq.


Third, Iraqis wanted U.S. troops to go home. With domestic enemies weakened and foreign enemies absent, Iraqis saw little need for a permanent U.S. presence. The more urgently Washington had pressed its case, the more skeptical Iraqis likely would have become. Just what did the United States hope to gain?

Fourth, the Maliki government turned down the Obama administration. The president’s critics assert that he could have reached an agreement, but how? By snapping his fingers? Waving a magic wand?

Responsibility for the Iraq debacle, from start to finish, lies with the Bush administration. President George W. Bush launched an unnecessary war. He manipulated the intelligence and minimized the costs to sell the public on his policy. He failed to adequately prepare for the conflict. He mismanaged the ensuing occupation. He failed to cope with the consequences of his cascade of mistakes. Iraq is what it is today because of George W. Bush.
Obama Didn t Lose Iraq The National Interest

 

[Mertex]

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

I hate to once again point out the painfully obvious here, Bfgrn...but Leon Panetta's account of what happened leading up to the total withdrawal of US troops would have to be a total fabrication in order to make Colin Kahl's account believable.

So who do I believe...the former Secretary of Defense who Obama himself described as having an impeccable reputation...or an adviser to Barack Obama?

So, you would send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails?

Not surprised...

No, if I were the President I would have done the hard work to get a new SOFA from the Iraqis so that they could stay and protect the gains that we'd made in Iraq.

Barry simply walked away from Iraq and left that country to ISIS. He wanted to do the same thing in Afghanistan but it's FINALLY dawned on him that his policies have consequences and a complete troop pullout from there would simply hand over another country to ISIS or the Taliban. As soon as THAT happened, Sparky...there would have been a wave of reprisal killings for anyone who sided with the US. So how many times do you think Barry the Clueless can turn his back on our allies before NOBODY trusts the US anymore? With his track record would you back anything Obama was doing if you were a moderate in a Middle East nation?

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

You are parroting right wing bullshit OS...

WHAT don't you understand? All the "hard work" in the world was NOT going to create a SOFA that was favorable to the US. Too many Iraqi's despise America after we invaded, occupied and killed their citizens. We are NOT viewed as liberators, we are viewed as occupiers.

Panetta has a right to his opinion, but A) it is not his name that signs the bottom of a SOFA, and B) the insight of Colin H. Kahl carries much more weight. He was an integral part of the negotiations. C) When the SOFA Bush hastily signed in 2008 expired in 2011, ISIS in Iraq was not even on the radar screen.

The blame for Iraq falls squarely on Bush, not Obama...the moment he invaded Iraq, HE owned it.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

So let me see if I follow your argument here...

A U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East supposedly knows more about the SOFA negotiations than the man who was Director of the CIA or Secretary of Defense during the time period in question? Really, Bfgrn? LOL

It's obvious that the Obama Administration trotted a junior level Administration adviser out to try and do damage control to Panetta's expose of Obama's failure of policy in Iraq. Kahl's piece is nothing more than a rather limp attempt to excuse Barack Obama's total lack of effort to obtain a new SOFA.

Obama apparently knows more about the SOFA negotiations than the Director of the CIA or Secretary of Defense. So, admit it, you don't give a damn about American soldiers and their protection, you just want Bush to be redeemed.

You need to do some research before you start making ignorant arguments.

Show any evidence that Obama could have secured another agreement that would have protected our soldiers......and we know that Bush didn't know what he was doing, and Panetta certainly wouldn't have left our men there without protection.


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up as if this was my decision.

So, let's just be clear the reason that we did not have a follow on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were -- a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there. And politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq.

JEN PSAKI, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESWOMAN: ... But what happened in 2011 was that there were two major factors, one was Iraq is a sovereign country. They decide with cooperation with the United States of course what kind of presence there would or wouldn't be. The second is we didn't have the troop protections that we needed. There were legal challenges there. There was a desire to have that go through the parliament. And that just wasn't going to be politically possible. - See more at:

- See more at: Megyn Kelly Rips State Department s Psaki With Panetta s Claim That Obama Wanted Out of Iraq

WIKI: SOFA
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.

The agreement expired at midnight on December 31, 2011, even though the United States completed its final withdrawal of troops from Iraq on December 16, 2011. The symbolic ceremony in Baghdad officially "cased" (retired) the flag of U.S. forces in Iraq, according to army tradition.[5]

 

[Oldstyle]

This has nothing to do with W! Bush has been back in Texas cutting brush and riding his mountain bike for the past six years! This is about a total lack of a coherent Middle East policy from Barack Obama. Everything he touches in that part of the world instantly turns to shit! Name a country that's in better shape NOW than it was when Barry took office! Syria? It's a burnt out ruin. Yemen? Embroiled in civil war. Iraq? Overrun by ISIS. Libya? Being co-opted by extremists. Egypt? Israel? Gaza? Iran? Name a "win" for Barack Obama ANYWHERE in the Middle East?

 

[Oldstyle]

The fact of the matter is that it was Barack Obama who wanted all our troops out of Iraq and he used the expiring SOFA as a convenient excuse to make that happen. As your very own cited article illustrates, Obama said during the Presidential debates that he didn't want US troops in Iraq because it would "tie us down". That isn't a man who's fighting to get another SOFA agreement...that's a man who's made up his mind to pull out all of our troops so that he won't be "tied down" in Iraq.

That was Barry's call. He made the decision AND HE ALONE OWNS THE RESULTS!

 

[Bfgrn]

The fact of the matter is that it was Barack Obama who wanted all our troops out of Iraq and he used the expiring SOFA as a convenient excuse to make that happen. As your very own cited article illustrates, Obama said during the Presidential debates that he didn't want US troops in Iraq because it would "tie us down". That isn't a man who's fighting to get another SOFA agreement...that's a man who's made up his mind to pull out all of our troops so that he won't be "tied down" in Iraq.

That was Barry's call. He made the decision AND HE ALONE OWNS THE RESULTS!

But WHY do we need to be there?

 

[Bfgrn]

Childish? What would be childish and unconscionable, unethical, amoral, immoral, unprincipled, indefensible, unforgivable, and wrong would be to send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

You are beyond childish...you are UN-American...

No, Obama Didn’t Lose Iraq
What the president’s critics get wrong.

By COLIN H. KAHL

June 15, 2014

The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.

Here are the facts.

As the senior Pentagon official responsible for Iraq policy during the first three years of the Obama administration, I had a front-row seat for the internal deliberations over how to end the war. Through the first half of 2011, there was a vigorous debate within the administration about whether U.S. forces should remain in Iraq beyond December, and if so, in what numbers and with what missions. Ultimately, at great political risk, President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq to provide counterterrorism support and air cover and to train the Iraqi army. But, as commander in chief, he was unwilling to strand U.S. forces in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections, which are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate, were guaranteed under the 2008 status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration; Obama simply demanded that they continue under any follow-on accord.

Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told U.S. negotiators that he was willing to sign an executive memorandum of understanding that included these legal protections. But for any agreement to be binding under the Iraqi constitution, it had to be approved by the Iraqi parliament. This was the judgment of every senior administration lawyer and Maliki’s own legal adviser, and no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.” Moreover, because the 2008 security agreement had been approved by the Iraqi parliament, it seemed both unrealistic and politically unsustainable to apply a lower standard this time around.

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular (only in Iraqi Kurdistan did a majority of people want American G.I.s to stay). Maliki was willing to consider going to parliament to approve a follow-on agreement, but he was not willing to stick his neck out. Other political factions would have to support the move, and the support wasn’t there. The Sadrists, a populist Shia movement that was now a major bloc in the parliament, were dead set against U.S. troops remaining. Ayad Allawi and Sunni politicians aligned with the Iraqiyya coalition supported a continued U.S. presence, but they knew that most of their Sunni constituents did not. They also wanted to condition their support on Maliki agreeing to additional political concessions. The Kurds were more active in their advocacy for a follow-on agreement, but they could not convince others to go along. So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders met in early October 2011 in an all-night session, they agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but said they were unwilling to seek immunities for these troops through the parliament. The die was thus cast. Obama and Maliki spoke on Oct. 21 and agreed that U.S. forces would depart as scheduled by the end of the year.

Read more: No Obama Didn t Lose Iraq - Colin H. Kahl - POLITICO Magazine

Yes, childish. Obama used that agreement as an excuse to blame bush knowing that following through on troop removal would lead to chaos and it has. He knew he could count on your ilk to come to his defense win that childish excuse.

WHY is it so hard for you to understand that Iraq is a sovereign nation? There was no possible SOFA agreement that Iraq would sign that would protect American soldiers from legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Yet George W. Bush...who you progressives have labeled the "village idiot...somehow managed to obtain a SOFA from Iraq...but it was IMPOSSIBLE for Barack Obama "the smartest President EVER!" according to progressive theology to do the same?

What Panetta revealed in his book was that Obama made little to no effort to ever obtain a new SOFA. That's the reality of what took place...despite the assurances of Colin Kahl!

So, you would send America's sons and daughters in a hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails?

Not surprised...

No, if I were the President I would have done the hard work to get a new SOFA from the Iraqis so that they could stay and protect the gains that we'd made in Iraq.

Barry simply walked away from Iraq and left that country to ISIS. He wanted to do the same thing in Afghanistan but it's FINALLY dawned on him that his policies have consequences and a complete troop pullout from there would simply hand over another country to ISIS or the Taliban. As soon as THAT happened, Sparky...there would have been a wave of reprisal killings for anyone who sided with the US. So how many times do you think Barry the Clueless can turn his back on our allies before NOBODY trusts the US anymore? With his track record would you back anything Obama was doing if you were a moderate in a Middle East nation?

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

You are parroting right wing bullshit OS...

WHAT don't you understand? All the "hard work" in the world was NOT going to create a SOFA that was favorable to the US. Too many Iraqi's despise America after we invaded, occupied and killed their citizens. We are NOT viewed as liberators, we are viewed as occupiers.

Panetta has a right to his opinion, but A) it is not his name that signs the bottom of a SOFA, and B) the insight of Colin H. Kahl carries much more weight. He was an integral part of the negotiations. C) When the SOFA Bush hastily signed in 2008 expired in 2011, ISIS in Iraq was not even on the radar screen.

The blame for Iraq falls squarely on Bush, not Obama...the moment he invaded Iraq, HE owned it.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

So let me see if I follow your argument here...

A U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East supposedly knows more about the SOFA negotiations than the man who was Director of the CIA or Secretary of Defense during the time period in question? Really, Bfgrn? LOL

It's obvious that the Obama Administration trotted a junior level Administration adviser out to try and do damage control to Panetta's expose of Obama's failure of policy in Iraq. Kahl's piece is nothing more than a rather limp attempt to excuse Barack Obama's total lack of effort to obtain a new SOFA.

YES. He was DIRECTLY involved in THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

What you CAN'T comprehend is that IRAQ WAS NOT GOING TO offer a SOFA that gave our sons and daughters the immunities and protections needed to keep them out of Iraqi jails.

And the SOFA Bush signed and DID NOT take to Congress was WEAK on those immunities and protections.

So you really DO think that a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense knew more about our negotiations with Iraq than Leon Panetta, the actual Secretary of Defense, did? That's amusing...really...

What Panetta pointed out was that Iraq was never going to offer us a SOFA deal if they felt that Barack Obama had no interest in keeping troops in Iraq to start with. Why would they? Why would any Iraqi politician vote for something that was unpopular (even if they realized that it was needed!) when they saw zero desire on Obama's part to keep troops in Iraq? Why would Obama put in the hard work to get a SOFA deal done when he fully intended to pull the troops out prior to running for reelection? That was the reality of the situation, Bfgrn...despite subsequent attempts by Obama flunky Kohl, to paint it differently.

I really don't give a shit what Panetta's opinion is. And by the way, you have presented ZERO links to what he said.

WHY are you unable to comprehend that no matter what Obama did, there would be no SOFA agreement that Iraq would approve without being able to treat American soldiers as subjects of Iraq. THAT is not in the best interests of America.

 

[Bfgrn]

And I'm amused by your characterization of the Bush SOFA as "weak" on immunities and protections. How "weak" was it compared to the Obama SOFA? Oh, that's right...Barry never got a deal period!

The fact of the matter is that it was Barack Obama who wanted all our troops out of Iraq and he used the expiring SOFA as a convenient excuse to make that happen. As your very own cited article illustrates, Obama said during the Presidential debates that he didn't want US troops in Iraq because it would "tie us down". That isn't a man who's fighting to get another SOFA agreement...that's a man who's made up his mind to pull out all of our troops so that he won't be "tied down" in Iraq.

That was Barry's call. He made the decision AND HE ALONE OWNS THE RESULTS!

Partly true, but there is more to it...

The McCain-Graham claim that Iraq s main political blocs were supportive of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq - The Washington Post

 

[Bfgrn]

And I'm amused by your characterization of the Bush SOFA as "weak" on immunities and protections. How "weak" was it compared to the Obama SOFA? Oh, that's right...Barry never got a deal period!

SO, you WANT Obama to send our troops into Iraq without immunities.

An Army Sargent wrote this about SOFA in 2009...

Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.

Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.

Next month we start the process of releasing approximately sixteen thousand Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody to the Iraqi government. We here in America have no clue who these people are. They may be actual anti-American killers or just Iraqi bystanders that were falsely identified as insurgents and locked up for the last 5 years. When released many Iraqi men may find that their homes have been destroyed and their family members killed. Will that provide sixteen thousand (a divisional size element) reinforcements to the Iraqi insurgency? It's very conceivable.

Our regular ground forces still apprehend 50 insurgents a day while our special forces teams apprehend approximately a dozen hardline terrorists. Under the SOFA, not only can't we apprehend them, we have to turn them loose to a corrupt Iraqi police force loaded with sleepers within forty eight hours.

What about the Iraqi detainees that will be considered "enemies of the state?" They'll be placed in brutal Iraqi detention camps where they're likely to be tortured and eventually killed on mere circumstantial evidence. If they're fortunate enough to be released further down the line don't expect them not to retaliate -- a perfect ingredient to jump start the abated Iraqi civil war.

If and when that happens, and the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

Silly us, we must have forgotten it's their country.

All for the bargain price of 3 billion dollars per week. What a beautiful mess.

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes, childish. Obama used that agreement as an excuse to blame bush knowing that following through on troop removal would lead to chaos and it has. He knew he could count on your ilk to come to his defense win that childish excuse.

WHY is it so hard for you to understand that Iraq is a sovereign nation? There was no possible SOFA agreement that Iraq would sign that would protect American soldiers from legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Yet George W. Bush...who you progressives have labeled the "village idiot...somehow managed to obtain a SOFA from Iraq...but it was IMPOSSIBLE for Barack Obama "the smartest President EVER!" according to progressive theology to do the same?

What Panetta revealed in his book was that Obama made little to no effort to ever obtain a new SOFA. That's the reality of what took place...despite the assurances of Colin Kahl!

No, if I were the President I would have done the hard work to get a new SOFA from the Iraqis so that they could stay and protect the gains that we'd made in Iraq.

Barry simply walked away from Iraq and left that country to ISIS. He wanted to do the same thing in Afghanistan but it's FINALLY dawned on him that his policies have consequences and a complete troop pullout from there would simply hand over another country to ISIS or the Taliban. As soon as THAT happened, Sparky...there would have been a wave of reprisal killings for anyone who sided with the US. So how many times do you think Barry the Clueless can turn his back on our allies before NOBODY trusts the US anymore? With his track record would you back anything Obama was doing if you were a moderate in a Middle East nation?

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

You are parroting right wing bullshit OS...

WHAT don't you understand? All the "hard work" in the world was NOT going to create a SOFA that was favorable to the US. Too many Iraqi's despise America after we invaded, occupied and killed their citizens. We are NOT viewed as liberators, we are viewed as occupiers.

Panetta has a right to his opinion, but A) it is not his name that signs the bottom of a SOFA, and B) the insight of Colin H. Kahl carries much more weight. He was an integral part of the negotiations. C) When the SOFA Bush hastily signed in 2008 expired in 2011, ISIS in Iraq was not even on the radar screen.

The blame for Iraq falls squarely on Bush, not Obama...the moment he invaded Iraq, HE owned it.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

So let me see if I follow your argument here...

A U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East supposedly knows more about the SOFA negotiations than the man who was Director of the CIA or Secretary of Defense during the time period in question? Really, Bfgrn? LOL

It's obvious that the Obama Administration trotted a junior level Administration adviser out to try and do damage control to Panetta's expose of Obama's failure of policy in Iraq. Kahl's piece is nothing more than a rather limp attempt to excuse Barack Obama's total lack of effort to obtain a new SOFA.

YES. He was DIRECTLY involved in THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

What you CAN'T comprehend is that IRAQ WAS NOT GOING TO offer a SOFA that gave our sons and daughters the immunities and protections needed to keep them out of Iraqi jails.

And the SOFA Bush signed and DID NOT take to Congress was WEAK on those immunities and protections.

So you really DO think that a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense knew more about our negotiations with Iraq than Leon Panetta, the actual Secretary of Defense, did? That's amusing...really...

What Panetta pointed out was that Iraq was never going to offer us a SOFA deal if they felt that Barack Obama had no interest in keeping troops in Iraq to start with. Why would they? Why would any Iraqi politician vote for something that was unpopular (even if they realized that it was needed!) when they saw zero desire on Obama's part to keep troops in Iraq? Why would Obama put in the hard work to get a SOFA deal done when he fully intended to pull the troops out prior to running for reelection? That was the reality of the situation, Bfgrn...despite subsequent attempts by Obama flunky Kohl, to paint it differently.

I really don't give a shit what Panetta's opinion is. And by the way, you have presented ZERO links to what he said.

WHY are you unable to comprehend that no matter what Obama did, there would be no SOFA agreement that Iraq would approve without being able to treat American soldiers as subjects of Iraq. THAT is not in the best interests of America.

Funny how Leon Panetta was lauded by progressives for his impeccable reputation right up to the point where he leveled with us about what really went on with the SOFA negotiations...and then suddenly he's a "LIAR" or his opinion isn't worth "shit"!

Funny how W....who you all were convinced was a moron because he pronounced nuclear funny...was able to pull off a SOFA deal with Iraqi leaders...yet for Barack Obama it's now been declared an IMPOSSIBILITY!!!

Have you noticed that there are a LOT of things that are impossible for Barry and his little band of progressive misfits?

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'm amused by your characterization of the Bush SOFA as "weak" on immunities and protections. How "weak" was it compared to the Obama SOFA? Oh, that's right...Barry never got a deal period!

SO, you WANT Obama to send our troops into Iraq without immunities.

An Army Sargent wrote this about SOFA in 2009...

Iraq: Is the SOFA viable?

The Status of Forces Agreement between the governments of Iraq and the United States comes with outrageous stipulations that render our troops helpless, subject them to Iraqi military tribunals, halt U.S. military operations, and turn vengeful detainees over to the Iraqis. So what is the point of leaving our troops there as potted plants for the next three years?

Anyone who thinks this SOFA is similar to that of the pacts we have with Germany or Japan is delusional. There will be no safe tours of the Iraqi countryside for our troops on R&R. The Bush Administration, in one of their last attempts to salvage some grain of positive legacy, pushed this "rush job" through so they can say: "look at how far the Iraqis have come, see, we really did liberate them." At the same time a bipartisan majority of Congress sat on their hands with the deer in the headlights look. Knowing it's going to blow up in the Obama Administration's face. You gotta love how politics works.

Mr. Obama has promised to initiate a firm time line for troop withdrawal which coincides with the SOFA. However, it won't be overnight -- it will take years. And if upon our exit from Iraq violence spikes, it is likely that the withdrawal plan will be replaced by a contingency plan that keeps our troops in harms way indefinitely.

According to the SOFA a system has to be established for Iraqi approval of all U.S. missions. Therefore, our military strategy over the next six months is to leave Iraqi cities and confine ourselves behind walls while waiting to be assigned approved missions by the Iraqi government. Every time U.S. troops leave their bases it will have to be cleared by the Iraqis -- even if they want to conduct a convoy to Kuwait for resupply purposes. Not to mention an actual combat mission to quell violence and find bad guys.

How many undercover insurgent cells currently plague the Iraqi police and security forces? When retired Marine General James Jones and then D.C. Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey conducted their trip to Iraq to evalute the Iraqi police they concluded that the Iraqi National Police Force is so sectarian and corrupt that the entire force should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up -- it never happened.

Next month we start the process of releasing approximately sixteen thousand Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody to the Iraqi government. We here in America have no clue who these people are. They may be actual anti-American killers or just Iraqi bystanders that were falsely identified as insurgents and locked up for the last 5 years. When released many Iraqi men may find that their homes have been destroyed and their family members killed. Will that provide sixteen thousand (a divisional size element) reinforcements to the Iraqi insurgency? It's very conceivable.

Our regular ground forces still apprehend 50 insurgents a day while our special forces teams apprehend approximately a dozen hardline terrorists. Under the SOFA, not only can't we apprehend them, we have to turn them loose to a corrupt Iraqi police force loaded with sleepers within forty eight hours.

What about the Iraqi detainees that will be considered "enemies of the state?" They'll be placed in brutal Iraqi detention camps where they're likely to be tortured and eventually killed on mere circumstantial evidence. If they're fortunate enough to be released further down the line don't expect them not to retaliate -- a perfect ingredient to jump start the abated Iraqi civil war.

If and when that happens, and the Iraqis authorize U.S. troops to restart military operations and innocent people are accidentally killed, Iraqi military tribunals reserve the right to prosecute our service people.

The Iraqi government can now try U.S. civilians and military personnel for crimes committed outside of U.S. bases and while "off duty." I can't envision a scenario that would place our military in an "off duty" status in a country as hostile as Iraq. Suffice it to say that our troops will be subject to the Iraqi criminal justice system every second of the day.

The Iraqi government, in an effort to further demonstrate it's sovereignty, reserves the right search and inventory all U.S. cargo entering the country. They will check off the boxes on exactly what resources they feel are acceptable for our military. So if a shipment of ordinance arrives in Kuwait and the Iraqis decide to conduct an inspection of a U.S. convoy carrying the shipment across the border and render a decision to confiscate our munitions will they allow us to turn it around or will they confiscate it, use it, or possibly turn it over to our enemies for them to use against our residual forces?

Silly us, we must have forgotten it's their country.

All for the bargain price of 3 billion dollars per week. What a beautiful mess.

Your "Sgt." is a retired veteran who is now a Huffington Post writer. He sees Barack Obama as "the last moderate Republican" so it's obvious that he's about as far left as they come. Nice try though trying to pass him off as someone from the military who backs Obama's policies. Well...not really!

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'm amused by your characterization of the Bush SOFA as "weak" on immunities and protections. How "weak" was it compared to the Obama SOFA? Oh, that's right...Barry never got a deal period!

The fact of the matter is that it was Barack Obama who wanted all our troops out of Iraq and he used the expiring SOFA as a convenient excuse to make that happen. As your very own cited article illustrates, Obama said during the Presidential debates that he didn't want US troops in Iraq because it would "tie us down". That isn't a man who's fighting to get another SOFA agreement...that's a man who's made up his mind to pull out all of our troops so that he won't be "tied down" in Iraq.

That was Barry's call. He made the decision AND HE ALONE OWNS THE RESULTS!

Partly true, but there is more to it...

The McCain-Graham claim that Iraq s main political blocs were supportive of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq - The Washington Post

You obviously missed the addendum to that article, Bfgrn! Written AFTER Leon Panetta's book became public!

"Update, Oct. 2, 2014: An excerpt from former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s memoir makes us wonder if we should withdraw the Pinocchio. “Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence. But none was willing to take that position publicly,” writes Panetta, who pins the blame on the White House for failing to use its leverage to get a deal. “To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away.”"

 

[Mindful]

Defused Iran?

It's just shifted to Yemen.

 

[Mertex]

This has nothing to do with W! Bush has been back in Texas cutting brush and riding his mountain bike for the past six years! This is about a total lack of a coherent Middle East policy from Barack Obama. Everything he touches in that part of the world instantly turns to shit! Name a country that's in better shape NOW than it was when Barry took office! Syria? It's a burnt out ruin. Yemen? Embroiled in civil war. Iraq? Overrun by ISIS. Libya? Being co-opted by extremists. Egypt? Israel? Gaza? Iran? Name a "win" for Barack Obama ANYWHERE in the Middle East?

What do you mean it has nothing to do with Bush? Bush should have in Texas cutting brush and riding his tricycle instead of invading Iraq, since that is probably the only thing he is good at. He broke it and he owns it, and no matter how much conservatives want to redeem him, the Doofus is still responsible for the mess he started.

ISIS started up in 2004, right smack in the middle of Bush's presidency. Own it.

 

[Mertex]

Yes, childish. Obama used that agreement as an excuse to blame bush knowing that following through on troop removal would lead to chaos and it has. He knew he could count on your ilk to come to his defense win that childish excuse.

WHY is it so hard for you to understand that Iraq is a sovereign nation? There was no possible SOFA agreement that Iraq would sign that would protect American soldiers from legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails.

Yet George W. Bush...who you progressives have labeled the "village idiot...somehow managed to obtain a SOFA from Iraq...but it was IMPOSSIBLE for Barack Obama "the smartest President EVER!" according to progressive theology to do the same?

What Panetta revealed in his book was that Obama made little to no effort to ever obtain a new SOFA. That's the reality of what took place...despite the assurances of Colin Kahl!

No, if I were the President I would have done the hard work to get a new SOFA from the Iraqis so that they could stay and protect the gains that we'd made in Iraq.

Barry simply walked away from Iraq and left that country to ISIS. He wanted to do the same thing in Afghanistan but it's FINALLY dawned on him that his policies have consequences and a complete troop pullout from there would simply hand over another country to ISIS or the Taliban. As soon as THAT happened, Sparky...there would have been a wave of reprisal killings for anyone who sided with the US. So how many times do you think Barry the Clueless can turn his back on our allies before NOBODY trusts the US anymore? With his track record would you back anything Obama was doing if you were a moderate in a Middle East nation?

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

You are parroting right wing bullshit OS...

WHAT don't you understand? All the "hard work" in the world was NOT going to create a SOFA that was favorable to the US. Too many Iraqi's despise America after we invaded, occupied and killed their citizens. We are NOT viewed as liberators, we are viewed as occupiers.

Panetta has a right to his opinion, but A) it is not his name that signs the bottom of a SOFA, and B) the insight of Colin H. Kahl carries much more weight. He was an integral part of the negotiations. C) When the SOFA Bush hastily signed in 2008 expired in 2011, ISIS in Iraq was not even on the radar screen.

The blame for Iraq falls squarely on Bush, not Obama...the moment he invaded Iraq, HE owned it.

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

So let me see if I follow your argument here...

A U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East supposedly knows more about the SOFA negotiations than the man who was Director of the CIA or Secretary of Defense during the time period in question? Really, Bfgrn? LOL

It's obvious that the Obama Administration trotted a junior level Administration adviser out to try and do damage control to Panetta's expose of Obama's failure of policy in Iraq. Kahl's piece is nothing more than a rather limp attempt to excuse Barack Obama's total lack of effort to obtain a new SOFA.

YES. He was DIRECTLY involved in THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.

What you CAN'T comprehend is that IRAQ WAS NOT GOING TO offer a SOFA that gave our sons and daughters the immunities and protections needed to keep them out of Iraqi jails.

And the SOFA Bush signed and DID NOT take to Congress was WEAK on those immunities and protections.

So you really DO think that a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense knew more about our negotiations with Iraq than Leon Panetta, the actual Secretary of Defense, did? That's amusing...really...

What Panetta pointed out was that Iraq was never going to offer us a SOFA deal if they felt that Barack Obama had no interest in keeping troops in Iraq to start with. Why would they? Why would any Iraqi politician vote for something that was unpopular (even if they realized that it was needed!) when they saw zero desire on Obama's part to keep troops in Iraq? Why would Obama put in the hard work to get a SOFA deal done when he fully intended to pull the troops out prior to running for reelection? That was the reality of the situation, Bfgrn...despite subsequent attempts by Obama flunky Kohl, to paint it differently.

I really don't give a shit what Panetta's opinion is. And by the way, you have presented ZERO links to what he said.

WHY are you unable to comprehend that no matter what Obama did, there would be no SOFA agreement that Iraq would approve without being able to treat American soldiers as subjects of Iraq. THAT is not in the best interests of America.

Because when you get down to it, conservatives give a lot of lip service to how much they love the military, but the truth is they really don't give a shit about our young men and women soldiers. Ted Cruz, Cotton and the rest of the idiots that sent the letter to Iran would spread our young men and women so thin on another war and not give a damn about it. Thank goodness the Doofus is not in control any more.