Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

[idb]

One thing that no-one's addressed - going right back to the OP;
Why would anyone listen to GWB's predictions when he has been so spectacularly wrong on everything else to do with the Middle East?

Are you making the case that he was wrong on what would occur if US troops were prematurely withdrawn from Iraq? I'm critical of many things about George W. Bush's Iraq policy but THAT particular call was pretty much spot on!

No, I'm wondering why anyone would castigate the WH, or Obama, for not taking any notice of Bush.
Why would ANYONE take any notice of his pronouncements...especially on foreign policy matters?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Those were my statements.

Just to be clear - These are your statements. You do not disagree with anything here:

1. AQI/ISIL/ISIS/terrorists were driven out of the country prior to Bush leaving office in January 2009?
2. The AQI/ISIL/ISIS/terrorists that were fighting and terrorizing Iraqis prior to 2009 were one of the groups engaged in combat with US Troops as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
3. So you agree with me that Operation Iraqi Freedom was for the purpose of taking the alleged stockpiles of WMD away from the Baathist regime in Baghdad under Saddam Hussein.
4. AQI terrorists moved from Iraq to Syria around 2008 and were formed and hardened in Syria into IS terrorists?
5. And that formation of IS Terrorists in Syria had nothing to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom and the national security matter involving Iraq and the UN inspection process and WMD being hid from UN inspectors in March 2003.
6. Operation Iraqi Freedom came to an end in December 2011?
7. (Re: Number 6)Obama and anyone else was correct to say in 2011 that the War Bush stupidly and dishonestly started regarding WMD in Iraq had come to an end for US combat troops. The war was over.
8. And since ISIS had not formed to the lethal levels of 2014 back in 2011 it is fair to accept that seeing something like a terrorist group far worse than AQ or AQI was not clear on anyone's radar.
9. The current military operation in Iraq consisting of advisers and airstrikes in close cooperation with the Iraqi government is a new war? It is not about WMD any longer.

Look at them closely. Is there anything you disagree with.

 

[Oldstyle]

One thing that no-one's addressed - going right back to the OP;
Why would anyone listen to GWB's predictions when he has been so spectacularly wrong on everything else to do with the Middle East?

Are you making the case that he was wrong on what would occur if US troops were prematurely withdrawn from Iraq? I'm critical of many things about George W. Bush's Iraq policy but THAT particular call was pretty much spot on!

No, I'm wondering why anyone would castigate the WH, or Obama, for not taking any notice of Bush.
Why would ANYONE take any notice of his pronouncements...especially on foreign policy matters?

Ah, because he was correct on this one?

 

[Dot Com]

I had my misgivings about OP being a partisan hack but this thread proves his bona fides

2002 (prior to that ill-fated & mismanaged 10+ yr invasion & occupation)
Transcript Obama s Speech Against The Iraq War NPR

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

 

[Oldstyle]

Those were my statements.

Just to be clear - These are your statements. You do not disagree with anything here:

1. AQI/ISIL/ISIS/terrorists were driven out of the country prior to Bush leaving office in January 2009?
2. The AQI/ISIL/ISIS/terrorists that were fighting and terrorizing Iraqis prior to 2009 were one of the groups engaged in combat with US Troops as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
3. So you agree with me that Operation Iraqi Freedom was for the purpose of taking the alleged stockpiles of WMD away from the Baathist regime in Baghdad under Saddam Hussein.
4. AQI terrorists moved from Iraq to Syria around 2008 and were formed and hardened in Syria into IS terrorists?
5. And that formation of IS Terrorists in Syria had nothing to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom and the national security matter involving Iraq and the UN inspection process and WMD being hid from UN inspectors in March 2003.
6. Operation Iraqi Freedom came to an end in December 2011?
7. (Re: Number 6)Obama and anyone else was correct to say in 2011 that the War Bush stupidly and dishonestly started regarding WMD in Iraq had come to an end for US combat troops. The war was over.
8. And since ISIS had not formed to the lethal levels of 2014 back in 2011 it is fair to accept that seeing something like a terrorist group far worse than AQ or AQI was not clear on anyone's radar.
9. The current military operation in Iraq consisting of advisers and airstrikes in close cooperation with the Iraqi government is a new war? It is not about WMD any longer.

Look at them closely. Is there anything you disagree with.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time arguing with someone who's demonstrated repeatedly that they have no clue about what's going on in the Middle East but I'll try anyways!

1) Yes, the predecessor to ISIS was in fact driven from Iraq by what was known as the "Awakening" movement...which were Iraqi nationals supported by the US reacting to the terror attacks on Iraqis by ISIS, which consisted mainly of foreign fighters. That was a success and DID happen while George W. Bush was still in office.

2) Yes, the predecessor to ISIS was one of the groups fighting against the US during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

3) The Second Gulf War took place because Saddam Hussein refused to abide by the UN sanctions that he agreed to at the end of the First Gulf War. He was selling oil illegally (with the help of the UN Secretary General's son no less!) and using those funds to rebuild his military and restart his nuclear weapon program. The stockpiles of WMD's (mostly chemical weapons) that he previously admitted to having have not been found.

4) Following their serious setbacks in 2008, ISIS morphed into a different animal in Iraq. Most of the foreign fighters moved on to Syria while the ISIS in Iraq was now constituted mainly of former Baathists that began fighting against Maliki as they sought to take advantage of the gradual withdrawal of US troops.

5) The concentration of foreign ISIS fighters in Syria was due to their being essentially run out of Iraq because they were committing atrocities against the Iraqi people.

6) When operations in Iraq began and ended are subject to interpretation. Initial combat operations for Operation Iraqi Freedom took an amazingly short 40 days! What followed was years of trying to manage the post invasion phase of the conflict. As the US commander, Tommy Franks put it the goals of the invasion were the following: "First, end the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from that country. Fourth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as we can related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needy Iraqi citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq’s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. And last, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government." My question to you...since Bush's policies had accomplished so many of those stated goals in Iraq and it was only when US forces started their gradual pull out on Obama's watch that ISIS returned in force to Iraq, when while Bush was President they had been force out...why wouldn't Barry be responsible for what took place while HE was President? Bush adapted to ongoing events. Obama stuck with his "time table for withdrawal".

7) The war obviously was NOT over because ISIS was moving into the vacuum left behind by US troop withdrawals. Obama simply ANNOUNCED that the war was over because he didn't want to fight it anymore.

8) As for what was on people's "radar"? This Administration was repeatedly given intelligence reports about the resurgence of ISIS both in Syria and in the Northwest part of Iraq. Obama's response was to pooh pooh the threat...calling them the JV.

9) What's going on NOW in Iraq is that we're being forced to go BACK into Iraq to deal with the problem that Obama ignored...only now they are in control of dozens of cities...embedded in the civilian populations...armed with high tech weapons taken from the Iraqis troops that cut and ran rather than fight and in control of assets that bring them in over a million dollars a day in revenue to support further jihad! I guess you COULD say it's a "new war", Notfooled...because Obama's inaction has created a terror nation where one didn't exist before. Now the only question is how many people are going to die fixing that problem!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Barry was so busy congratulating himself on being "the war stopper"! that he totally ignored what was happening in Iraq.

0908A

What was happening in Iraq? You told us (see my post today at 05:45 PM) that these were your statements:

4. AQI terrorists moved from Iraq to Syria around 2008 and were formed and hardened in Syria into IS terrorists?
5. And that formation of IS Terrorists in Syria had nothing to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom and the national security matter involving Iraq and the UN inspection process and WMD being hid from UN inspectors in March 2003. 6. Operation Iraqi Freedom came to an end in December 2011?

*****

Because the early withdrawal of troops has allowed a terrorist "nation" to be created...

0908A

*A Really? A 'terrorist "nation" has been created? Get real! IS is not a nation. Iraq is a nation and Syria is a nation. If you think 40,000 killers can build an actual nation you can't have much faith in mankind.

*B If you wish to declare causation between 'the early withdrawal of troops' in 2011 and "a terrorist "nation" being created" in 2014 you cannot ignore the 'introduction' of US troops into Iraq' in March 2003. After all it is pure logic that 'troops cannot be withdrawn early' if 'troops had not gone into Iraq' in the first place. Your thought process is really in a bind going to this road.

Compared to how George W. Bush left the Middle East...Barack Obama has done nothing but make things worse.

0908A

*C Have you analyzed all the repercussions that have resulted since the time in 2003 when Bush flipped the balance in Iraq between Shia and Sunni. Bush 'left' Iraq in the 'Middle East' under the control of Maliki.

*D And you have admitted that Bush therefore left Iraq in the hands of a leader that did not have the brains of a guava.

What I believe is that if Maliki had the brains of a guava he would have realized that excluding the Sunnis from power in Iraq was incredibly dangerous given the situation.

*E Bush according to your beliefs left Iraq in the hands of Maliki who governed Iraq in an incredibly dangerous way for the future of Iraq. What on earth could Obama had done to make things worse than what Bush left Maliki to do in Iraq after Bush went back to the ranch.

He's a man who doesn't look at the world around him with clear eyes but instead sees the world through lenses colored by his own beliefs.

0908A

*F What kind of nonsense is this? Define Obama's beliefs on foreign policy? And not what Rush Limbaugh says they are.

Because of his total lack of leadership hundreds of thousands of people have been slaughtered and the world is in chaos.

0908A

*G You cannot mean that Obama had a lack of leadership on Iraq since you agree (see my post today at 05:45 PM) that AQI/ISIL/ISIS/terrorists were driven out of the country prior to Bush leaving office in January 2009?

* NotfooledbyW 09-08-2014 08:01 PM

 

[NotfooledbyW]

( Statement (9) see my post today at 05:45 PM)

9) What's going on NOW in Iraq is that we're being forced to go BACK into Iraq to deal with the problem that Obama ignored...

How can it be that you believe that Obama ignored the advice of Bush's two main post-surge generals regarding Iraq?

Here's Odierno publically stating in September 2009 that the Iraqis have demonstrated that they are capable and in control of their own security.

However, Odierno gave a vote of confidence to the Iraqi forces who had taken over security for Baghdad after U.S. forces handed over control. "The Iraqis wanted to be in charge; they wanted the responsibilities; and they have demonstrated that they are capable," he said. - 4,000 U.S. troops expected to leave Iraq in October, CNN, September 30, 2009

source: 4,000 U.S. troops expected to leave Iraq in October - CNN.com



And here is Petraeus answering what would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.

So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate.

As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/david-petraeus-isiss-rise-in-iraq-isnt-a-surprise/

So why on earth should we believe a partisan hack that Obama ignored something and this hack KNOWS SOMETHING that Petraeus and Odierno don't know?

My mind always defaults to the generals who led the troops. Not armchair generals that lead nothing but partisan political witch hunts.

 

[Oldstyle]

( Statement (9) see my post today at 05:45 PM)

9) What's going on NOW in Iraq is that we're being forced to go BACK into Iraq to deal with the problem that Obama ignored...

How can it be that you believe that Obama ignored the advice of Bush's two main post-surge generals regarding Iraq?

Here's Odierno publically stating in September 2009 that the Iraqis have demonstrated that they are capable and in control of their own security.

However, Odierno gave a vote of confidence to the Iraqi forces who had taken over security for Baghdad after U.S. forces handed over control. "The Iraqis wanted to be in charge; they wanted the responsibilities; and they have demonstrated that they are capable," he said. - 4,000 U.S. troops expected to leave Iraq in October, CNN, September 30, 2009

source: 4,000 U.S. troops expected to leave Iraq in October - CNN.com



And here is Petraeus answering what would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.

So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate.

As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/david-petraeus-isiss-rise-in-iraq-isnt-a-surprise/

So why on earth should we believe a partisan hack that Obama ignored something and this hack KNOWS SOMETHING that Petraeus and Odierno don't know?

My mind always defaults to the generals who led the troops. Not armchair generals that lead nothing but partisan political witch hunts.

Did you not read the Petraeus quote?

"As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond."

What do you think he meant with that? That's basically Petraeus stating that he thinks not having a force remaining in Iraq gave up progress that American troops fought and died to attain! How you see that as a vindication of Obama's decision to pull out would amaze me except I've already come to the conclusion that you're not that sharp.

 

[Oldstyle]

"What was happening in Iraq? You told us (see my post today at 05:45 PM) that these were your statements;"

Are you always this stupid? I didn't tell you those were my statements, you buffoon...YOU said they were my statements!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

( Statement (9) see my post today at 05:45 PM)

8) As for what was on people's "radar"? This Administration was repeatedly given intelligence reports about the resurgence of ISIS both in Syria and in the Northwest part of Iraq. Obama's response was to pooh pooh the threat...calling them the JV.

Do you have access to those intelligence reports so we all can read them?

I seem to recall that US intelligence services did not anticipate the June 10 IS Terrorist attack and seizure of Mosul and they were surprised at the Iraqi army's hasty retreat. The latter would have been good to know a couple of months ahead of time so that US advisers could have recommended to Maliki to put competent officers in charge of areas in the north instead of his cronies. There did not need to be 10,000 US troops sitting in Iraq waiting for something to happen that would have happened anyway most likely because Maliki did not appear to want to change his ways or the way he ran the army.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Did you not read the Petraeus quote?

"As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond."

What do you think he meant with that? That's basically Petraeus stating that he thinks not having a force remaining in Iraq gave up progress that American troops fought and died to attain! How you see that as a vindication of Obama's decision to pull out would amaze me except I've already come to the conclusion that you're not that sharp.

No its not. You have made a false interpretation through omission of the full quote. Read the whole quote that I provided. It starts with 'no one knows'..... and no one knows includes you.

"I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue"

Do you know what "IF" means?

Petraeus was clearly stating that know one knows if keeping troops there TAKING DIRECTION from MALIKI would have made a difference. That is what he means when he says "IF I KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE A MISSION. It is obvious that Petraeus has serious doubts that Maliki would have given them a proper mission that did not alienate Sunnis even more than what went down without them.

And there is no way that Obama could force those troops to stay anyway. Your insistence that he could force Iraqis to bend to his will is utter distortion of reality.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"What was happening in Iraq? You told us (see my post today at 05:45 PM) that these were your statements;"

Are you always this stupid? I didn't tell you those were my statements, you buffoon...YOU said they were my statements!

Did you write this?

When did you say half of the stuff you just claimed to have said? Those were my statements.

Does "those were my statements" mean that they are not your statements?

You owe me another apology. Get on with it.

 

[Skylar]

I'm amused by your willingness to assign someone who is routinely described as "the most powerful man in the world" no power at all, Skylar!

The degree control that you naively imagine the president has is simply not possessed by the office. Not Obama, not Bush, not any president.

You're literally arguing your own naivete of a 'Papa President' who can just magically make anything happen he wants. Alas, we are forced to live in the real world. And your fantasy of an all powerful president that can literally undo entire revolutions with a single choice places no part in it.....being imaginary.

The truth is...Barack Obama would have major influence in the Middle East IF HE SO CHOSE!

The 'truth', huh? As demonstrated so obviously by Bush signing a SOFA where we were required to leave at the end of 2011.....this imaginary presidential superpower that you've so adorably wished upon a star doesn't actually exist.

If its as simple as you pretend, then why did Bush sign anything would limit our options so completely? Why would he need to? Why didn't Bush just impose peace across the entire middle east? I mean, if he chose to he could do it per your ridiculous assumptions.

Why did Bush allow all of those troops to die in Iraq? Per you, it was a choice. He could have chosen not to allow any to die. Why allow tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians to die, why allow Islamic extremism to even exist? With a single choice he could have made them all disappear too. That is the way your fantasy works, isn't it?

Or......and this is just a thought.....you have no idea what you're talking about. And you're condemning Obama for his failure to fulfill the childishly naive dreams of your own imagination. Which have nothing to do with the world that we live in.

His choice however was to abdicate that influence...something he did early on with his Cairo speech. Barack Obama made it the policy of his government to not use American influence.

You've condemned him for not forcing the Iraqi's to keep US troops in their country against the will of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. That's ridiculous.

The Iraqi's didn't want us there. It is their country. We were there at their request and permission. When that permission was revoked, we left. While you may ignore the entire idea of national sovereignty and democracy, those are the principles we used to justify our military action in the first place.

If we're the liberators of Iraq, we leave when they ask. If we're the conquerors of Iraq, we force them to do what we want regardless of what they desire. You are demanding we force them. That's not liberty. That's not democracy. That looks a lot like the tyranny we supposedly 'liberated' them from.

No thank you.

...

As for our involvement in Iraq? It's obvious that it didn't end when we pulled out troops at the end of 2011 because we're back in Iraq with troops on the ground and air strikes from the air.

We're back at their request. See how sovereignty works? They ask us to leave, we leave. They ask us to intervene, we can intervene. Per you, we decide what we want to do and FORCE Iraq to take it regardless of what they have to say on the matter. That's what you call 'influence'.

I don't think influence means what you think it means. As you're insisting that Iraq doesn't get to choose if they have troops in the US. That we make that choice for them. And that's not what we agreed to.

What you refuse to admit is that Barack Obama held huge sway over Iraq's policies because we were subsidizing the Maliki regime with billions of dollars in aid. If Obama had WANTED to play hardball with Maliki then he could have gotten just about any concession he wanted by threatening to cut off that aid. Obama didn't DO that however because he wanted to be out of Iraq. That was HIS decision.

What I refuse to acknowledge is that you pretending to be Obama and Maliki means anything. You pretend that you speak for Maliki, imagining that you define his motivations and his willingness to abdicate the control of his country to us. You don't. You pretend you speak for Obama, imagining a degree of control that presidents simply don't have. You don't speak for Obama either.

We're not Iraq's masters. We are their partners. And they get a say in their own country. Something you've been arguing they shouldn't get. You're demanding we FORCE them. Those are your words.

If it was a simply a 'choice' as you describe.....then why didn't Bush do it? Why were there any conditions on the SOFA agreement at all, if the degree of control you've made up is merely a choice away? Clearly there are some factors you're missing.

 

[Skylar]

"As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond."

Obama wanted a sizable force of thousands of men to stay. The Iraqi's didn't.

This is where your entire argument runs headlong into the realities of national sovereignty. We were in Iraq at the permission of the Iraqi government. When they asked us to leave.....we have to leave. As we have no legal justification for being there without the invite.

You insist we force them to take the troops no matter what they want. So much for the 'liberty' and 'democracy' that Bush spoke of as the justifications for his war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And here is Petraeus answering what would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?

"No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising."

Petraeus says "NO ONE KNOWS.....
Oldstyle tells us he KNOWS....

Petraeus says know one knows "whether forces there would have given us an influence"
Oldstyle tells us he KNOWS that ...forces there would have given us an influence"

Petraeus says our troops were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising.
Oldstyle tells us that troops out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising could make a difference.

Petraeus says he would have loved it even more if he knew that remaining troops were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress - meaning he doesn't know if Maliki would have allowed that to happen.

Oldstyle tells us that he knows that Maliki would have allowed that to happen.


So who is it going to be? Petraeus former Bush's top general in Iraq and CIA Director when ISIL was gaining strength in Syria?

Or is it the keyboard commando who manufactures this kind of false realities with nearly every single post:

What you refuse to admit is that Barack Obama held huge sway over Iraq's policies because we were subsidizing the Maliki regime with billions of dollars in aid. If Obama had WANTED to play hardball with Maliki then he could have gotten just about any concession he wanted by threatening to cut off that aid.

Maliki was not the only party that Obama had to force concessions upon. Maliki was in power as a result of the Sadrists who are led by Muqtada al Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric who would discard US aid in a heartbeat. Bush had no sway over Sadr or his militia turned political party.

So how does Obama persuade the Sadrists who were needed in the Parliament to extend the stay of US troops after December 31 2011?

 

[Skylar]

Petraeus says "NO ONE KNOWS.....
Oldstyle tells us he KNOWS....

Well, Old claims to speak for Maliki and Obama. Why not Petraeus?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm amused by your willingness to assign someone who is routinely described as "the most powerful man in the world" no power at all, Skylar!

The degree control that you naively imagine the president has is simply not possessed by the office. Not Obama, not Bush, not any president.

You're literally arguing your own naivete of a 'Papa President' who can just magically make anything happen he wants. Alas, we are forced to live in the real world. And your fantasy of an all powerful president that can literally undo entire revolutions with a single choice places no part in it.....being imaginary.

The truth is...Barack Obama would have major influence in the Middle East IF HE SO CHOSE!

The 'truth', huh? As demonstrated so obviously by Bush signing a SOFA where we were required to leave at the end of 2011.....this imaginary presidential superpower that you've so adorably wished upon a star doesn't actually exist.

If its as simple as you pretend, then why did Bush sign anything would limit our options so completely? Why would he need to? Why didn't Bush just impose peace across the entire middle east? I mean, if he chose to he could do it per your ridiculous assumptions.

Why did Bush allow all of those troops to die in Iraq? Per you, it was a choice. He could have chosen not to allow any to die. Why allow tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians to die, why allow Islamic extremism to even exist? With a single choice he could have made them all disappear too. That is the way your fantasy works, isn't it?

Or......and this is just a thought.....you have no idea what you're talking about. And you're condemning Obama for his failure to fulfill the childishly naive dreams of your own imagination. Which have nothing to do with the world that we live in.

His choice however was to abdicate that influence...something he did early on with his Cairo speech. Barack Obama made it the policy of his government to not use American influence.

You've condemned him for not forcing the Iraqi's to keep US troops in their country against the will of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. That's ridiculous.

The Iraqi's didn't want us there. It is their country. We were there at their request and permission. When that permission was revoked, we left. While you may ignore the entire idea of national sovereignty and democracy, those are the principles we used to justify our military action in the first place.

If we're the liberators of Iraq, we leave when they ask. If we're the conquerors of Iraq, we force them to do what we want regardless of what they desire. You are demanding we force them. That's not liberty. That's not democracy. That looks a lot like the tyranny we supposedly 'liberated' them from.

No thank you.

...

As for our involvement in Iraq? It's obvious that it didn't end when we pulled out troops at the end of 2011 because we're back in Iraq with troops on the ground and air strikes from the air.

We're back at their request. See how sovereignty works? They ask us to leave, we leave. They ask us to intervene, we can intervene. Per you, we decide what we want to do and FORCE Iraq to take it regardless of what they have to say on the matter. That's what you call 'influence'.

I don't think influence means what you think it means. As you're insisting that Iraq doesn't get to choose if they have troops in the US. That we make that choice for them. And that's not what we agreed to.

What you refuse to admit is that Barack Obama held huge sway over Iraq's policies because we were subsidizing the Maliki regime with billions of dollars in aid. If Obama had WANTED to play hardball with Maliki then he could have gotten just about any concession he wanted by threatening to cut off that aid. Obama didn't DO that however because he wanted to be out of Iraq. That was HIS decision.

What I refuse to acknowledge is that you pretending to be Obama and Maliki means anything. You pretend that you speak for Maliki, imagining that you define his motivations and his willingness to abdicate the control of his country to us. You don't. You pretend you speak for Obama, imagining a degree of control that presidents simply don't have. You don't speak for Obama either.

We're not Iraq's masters. We are their partners. And they get a say in their own country. Something you've been arguing they shouldn't get. You're demanding we FORCE them. Those are your words.

If it was a simply a 'choice' as you describe.....then why didn't Bush do it? Why were there any conditions on the SOFA agreement at all, if the degree of control you've made up is merely a choice away? Clearly there are some factors you're missing.

Intelligent leadership would have had the foresight to understand that Maliki WAS an idiot and that the policies he put in place excluding Sunnis from leadership roles in the military could have dire consequences, with ISIS rapidly gaining strength across the border in Syria and a large number of Baathist insurgents moving into the vacuum left behind by the departing US troops. Intelligent leadership would have TOLD Maliki that if he wanted US aid totaling billions that he needed to have a government that didn't exclude the Sunnis and the Kurds. You're right...I WAS demanding that we force that! It was the intelligent thing to do! Too bad Barry was only concerned with his legacy as the President who "ended" the war in Iraq!

 

[Oldstyle]

"Petraeus says our troops were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising."

Well...duh! The REASON they were out of combat, out of the cities and out of advising was because they were being withdrawn! Petraeus then goes on to express, rather plaintively I thought, how he wished we hadn't given away so easily what so many Americans died for.

 

[Skylar]

Intelligent leadership would have had the foresight to understand that Maliki WAS an idiot and that the policies he put in place excluding Sunnis from leadership roles in the military could have dire consequences, with ISIS rapidly gaining strength across the border in Syria and a large number of Baathist insurgents moving into the vacuum left behind by the departing US troops.

Why then would BUsh, knowing Maliki was an 'idiot' have signed a SOFA that required us to leave at the end of 2011 when he just could have 'made a choice' and gotten a SOFA with no time limit or restrictions? I mean, in this little fantasy you've concoted, it would have been remarkably simple.

Yet Bush didn't. Meaning either he doesn't exhibit 'intelligent leadership' (per your imagination anyway)....or you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Remember Old, and this point is fundamental: you don't actually speak for Obama or Maliki. All these little imaginary hypothetical scenarios that you've made up in your head don't actually have any reflection in the real world. What you're demanding is that we FORCE Iraq to keep troops in their against their will....

......and laughably call it 'liberty' and 'democracy'. Um, buddy? Its neither.

 

[Skylar]

"Petraeus says our troops were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising."

Well...duh! The REASON they were out of combat, out of the cities and out of advising was because they were being withdrawn! Petraeus then goes on to express, rather plaintively I thought, how he wished we hadn't given away so easily what so many Americans died for.

They were being withdrawn because the sovereigns of the cities in question didn't want them there. You keep insisting that we ignore national sovereignty, ignore our agreements, ignore democracy, ignore the will of the people, ignore the Iraqi government.....and FORCE Iraq to take troops they didn't want.

That's not liberation. That's occupation.