Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

You need to get a grip on reality. The decision for troops to stay was not Obama's.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Do we "force" Iraq to take billions in US aid? So is it "fantasy" on my part to point out that using the threat of a loss of that aid coupled with the looming threat of the former Baathists filling the power vacuum created by a withdrawal of US troops would have brought even an "anti-American cleric like Moqtada al-Sadr to the bargaining table?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

You need to get a grip on reality. The decision for troops to stay was not Obama's.

If the US withholds aid from Iraq under Maliki, the country crumbles in short order. That's REALITY! What you two naive fools believe is that Maliki held the whip hand in this discussion. That's laughable. He's now gone because we wanted him gone...not because he chose to go.

 

[Dot Com]

"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.

^ that

Oldstyle drank the (unpaid-for ) rw world police, kool aid & theres no changing his mind especially when theres a 2-term Democratic President in the WH

 

[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?

Ah, because he was correct on this one?

That makes no sense.

 

[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?

That makes no sense.

You're right...it does make no sense to ignore what Bush said when it turns out that he was correct!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"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.

No. Petraeus explained what he meant by that. The problem was Maliki.

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,

I asked you earlier to read the full Petraeus quote. I guess you have no intention of doing so.


And 'out of cities and out of combat' by June 2009 was in the agreement that Bush and Maliki made for the SOFA that covered US troops from 2009 through 2011. FYI there were still about 150,000 US troops in Iraq when that SOFA went into effect.

So again "NO". There were not out of combat, out of the cities and out of advising because they were being withdrawn! They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of advising because they were complying with the Bush/Maliki SOFA and timeline for withdrawal that was agreed to in December 2008.

 

[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.

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.

^ that

Oldstyle drank the (unpaid-for ) rw world police, kool aid & theres no changing his mind especially when theres a 2-term Democratic President in the WH

It wouldn't matter which party a sitting President was from...if they botched something as badly as Barry has botched ISIS then I'd call them on it.

 

[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.

No. Petraeus explained what he meant by that. The problem was Maliki.

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,

I asked you earlier to read the full Petraeus quote. I guess you have no intention of doing so.


And 'out of cities and out of combat' by June 2009 was in the agreement that Bush and Maliki made for the SOFA that covered US troops from 2009 through 2011. FYI there were still about 150,000 US troops in Iraq when that SOFA went into effect.

So again "NO". There were not out of combat, out of the cities and out of advising because they were being withdrawn! They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of advising because they were complying with the Bush/Maliki SOFA and timeline for withdrawal that was agreed to in December 2008.

You really ARE a naive person...aren't you? What would Maliki allow US military to do to keep ISIS from taking the second largest city in Iraq? Quite frankly...I can't think of much that he wouldn't allow at that point!

 

[Oldstyle]

He sure allowed those "advisers" back in a New York minute!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You're right...it does make no sense to ignore what Bush said when it turns out that he was correct!

It makes sense to ignore Bush when you realize that he is the one that agreed to withdraw all the troops from Iraq cities by June 2009 and all completely gone by December 31, 2011.

But you need to explain why you are ignoring what Obama said before Bush sent troops into Iraq in March 2003. It turns out Obama was right and had nothing to do with Bush's decision to invade Iraq whatsoever. Obama was right about sending troops in being dumb long before Bush you think got something right about withdrawing troops after nearly a decade of US troops bogged down in a quagmire. Obama told Bush what would happen. Bush should of listened to him instead of his heavenly father.

 

[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.

No. Petraeus explained what he meant by that. The problem was Maliki.

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,

I asked you earlier to read the full Petraeus quote. I guess you have no intention of doing so.


And 'out of cities and out of combat' by June 2009 was in the agreement that Bush and Maliki made for the SOFA that covered US troops from 2009 through 2011. FYI there were still about 150,000 US troops in Iraq when that SOFA went into effect.

So again "NO". There were not out of combat, out of the cities and out of advising because they were being withdrawn! They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of advising because they were complying with the Bush/Maliki SOFA and timeline for withdrawal that was agreed to in December 2008.

Did you really just say that they were not out of combat, out of cities and out of advising because they were being withdrawn and then in the very next sentence state that they were all of those things because they were complying with a timeline for withdrawal? Are you mentally challenged in some way? Did you REALLY just write that and think it made sense in any way?

 

[Oldstyle]

You're right...it does make no sense to ignore what Bush said when it turns out that he was correct!

It makes sense to ignore Bush when you realize that he is the one that agreed to withdraw all the troops from Iraq cities by June 2009 and all completely gone by December 31, 2011.

But you need to explain why you are ignoring what Obama said before Bush sent troops into Iraq in March 2003. It turns out Obama was right and had nothing to do with Bush's decision to invade Iraq whatsoever. Obama was right about sending troops in being dumb long before Bush you think got something right about withdrawing troops after nearly a decade of US troops bogged down in a quagmire. Obama told Bush what would happen. Bush should of listened to him instead of his heavenly father.

That decision was made back in 2008. It was based on what was projected to happen over the intervening years. In 2008 did anyone see the rise of ISIS occurring in Syria? Did anyone see it taking over the second largest city in Iraq in a matter of weeks? I can make a good case that Bush would have pushed HARD for a new Status of Forces Agreement given the situation that unfolded. Barack Obama didn't even make an effort. He wanted out of Iraq.

 

[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?

Ah, because he was correct on this one?

That makes no sense.

You're right...it does make no sense to ignore what Bush said when it turns out that he was correct!

Sure thing.
You go with that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You really ARE a naive person...aren't you? What would Maliki allow US military to do to keep ISIS from taking the second largest city in Iraq? Quite frankly...I can't think of much that he wouldn't allow at that point!

So now you believe Petraeus is naïve about Maliki and Iraq. You are really something.

If Maliki did not want ISIS to take Mosul he could have stopped it on is own. Yes that is right. He could have put competent Officers in charge to defend Mosul.

Why on earth would you put American troops lives on the front line to help a Shiite PM defend a Sunni City because Maliki would not defend it himself with competent troops.


The CIA was not aware that the Iraqi military would run, What makes you think Maliki was aware of it too?

So you would have foreseen the attack by 1000 IS terrorists on Mosul in advance knowing that 30,000 Iraqi soldiers and their officers were going to flee, and stationed US ground troops around Mosul to fight on the ground so Iraqis didn't have to?

I'll stick with Petraeus and thank god that you aren't making any decisions on what to do anywhere.


Iraqi Soldiers Fleeing ISIS Claim They Were 'Abandoned' by Senior Officers
By John Beck
June 15, 2014 | 10:45 am

Some of the 30,000 Iraqi soldiers who retreated as a much smaller force of Sunni militants overran Iraq’s second largest city of Mosul last week told VICE News that they fled after being "abandoned" by their commanders.

The complete collapse of Iraqi forces in Mosul came as a shock to many observers, particularly as it was apparently at the hands of less than a thousand gunmen and they, along with the rest of the country's military had benefited from $25 billion worth of training and equipment provided by the US before it withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2011.
Colonel Mahmoud Ahmed Hussein, who heads the Kurdish fighters on the front between Erbil and Mosul, told VICE News that according to the information he had access to, the Sunni militant force numbered just 500 when it took the city.
“ISIS is not that powerful, the weakness is the Iraqi army… which couldn’t fight for more than an hour before they left and they even left their weapons,” he said, adding that it is likely stronger after local supporters joined up.

 

[Oldstyle]

So Bush cautions that an early withdrawal of troops could lead to instability in Iraq that might be exploited by insurgents...that's pretty much exactly what happened...yet you don't think he should be given credit for that because you think he got other things wrong? That makes sense to you?

 

[Oldstyle]

You really ARE a naive person...aren't you? What would Maliki allow US military to do to keep ISIS from taking the second largest city in Iraq? Quite frankly...I can't think of much that he wouldn't allow at that point!

So now you believe Petraeus is naïve about Maliki and Iraq. You are really something.

If Maliki did not want ISIS to take Mosul he could have stopped it on is own. Yes that is right. He could have put competent Officers in charge to defend Mosul.

Why on earth would you put American troops lives on the front line to help a Shiite PM defend a Sunni City because Maliki would not defend it himself with competent troops.

The CIA was not aware that the Iraqi military would run, What makes you think Maliki was aware of it too?

So you would have foreseen the attack by 500 IS terrorists on Mosul in advance knowing that 30,000 Iraqi soldiers were going to flee, and stationed US ground troops around Mosul to fight on the ground so Iraqis didn't have to?

I'll stick with Petraeus and thank god that you aren't making any decisions on what to do anywhere.

I didn't think Petreaus was naive about Maliki or Iraq. I think his statement speaks for itself. He's understandably annoyed that we seem to be giving up on something that so many Americans gave their lives to make happen.

As for what "I" would have done? I would have used the force that had remained in Iraq to provide stability, to immediately reinforce Mosul. I would have also made it clear to ISIS that if the number of troops I was sending was insufficient that I would be sending more to reinforce THEM! I'm quite confident those actions would have sent ISIS scuttling back across the Syrian border. Or do you honestly think that 500 ISIS troops would stand a chance in hell against an equal number of US troops backed with air power? Just how naive ARE you?

 

[idb]

So Bush cautions that an early withdrawal of troops could lead to instability in Iraq that might be exploited by insurgents...that's pretty much exactly what happened...yet you don't think he should be given credit for that because you think he got other things wrong? That makes sense to you?

Do you seriously want to defend GWB's credibility on Middle East issues?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I can make a good case that Bush would have pushed HARD for a new Status of Forces Agreement given the situation that unfolded.

You are possibly right. Bush may have kissed Maliki's Shiite ass and had the USAF become the Shiite Air Force and sent ground troops in to fight so the Iraqis wouldn't have to.

I've made a good case that Obama would not be that stupid.

 

[Oldstyle]

So Bush cautions that an early withdrawal of troops could lead to instability in Iraq that might be exploited by insurgents...that's pretty much exactly what happened...yet you don't think he should be given credit for that because you think he got other things wrong? That makes sense to you?

Do you seriously want to defend GWB's credibility on Middle East issues?

Do I want to defend his credibility on THAT particular Middle East issue? Yes...yes I do! He got it right...give credit where credit is due.