capturing Ramadi and ISIS has gained full control. The White House calls it a setback. I call it a completely avoidable tragedy of Obama's making. I can't imagine the grief of the loved ones over this loss, it must be heartbreaking.
Over 1,800 lives lost and more than 8,200 injured
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
I disagree, respectfully. We should have at least 20,000 troops in Iraq today. If we did, ISIS would never have invaded and Iran would not be sending troops to Iraq to fight ISIS and expanding their influence over the region. We still have troops in Korea and Germany. There is no reason we should not have them in Iraq as well. Obama wanted to say he ended our involvement without regard for the stratgic consequences. Panetta's comments regarding this fiasco are well worth reading.
You and I are usually on the same page. I just am tired of doing the dirty work for people who don't have the guts to fight for their beliefs. That shows me they have no firm beliefs. Germany and Korea are different than Iraq. If our troops had to constantly fight off insurgents in Germany and Korea like in Iraq, I would feel the same about those countries. The whole middle east has many,many different factions and someone is always going to be fighting someone.
I just do not believe that ISIS goes anywhere near Iraq with 20,000 US troops on hand. They originally invaded the country with 800 troops. And with thousands of troops dying to liberate Iraq it is such an insult to them to see it frittered away.
I agree that it is an insult. But its better than having more killed or maimed, especially when it would never stop. Also when we invaded to throw out Saddam Hussein, it was a conventional army against a conventional army. It's not the same today.
Last edited:
Actually, I say let the Iraqi's and Iranians fight this out. It will play out. Support the Kurds in the North, but let the Sunni's and Shitte's go at it and if Iran wants to intervene, FINE. It would weaken the power of the Iranian government and perhaps an position an emerging modern Iranian population for a winnable coup.
Why would Iraqi citizens want to fight for the government they have? Unless I am greatly mistaken, citizenship doesn't come with a lot of ownership.
ISIS was already in Iraq, since 2006. Who do you think we were fighting in the surge? The only difference is that it called itself al Qaeda in Iraq in those days. You're probably right that we could have kept it tamped down with 20,000 troops, but at what cost? Between them and the Shiite militias we'd be losing dozens of men and women a week to prop up a country that didn't want us there.
As Obama stated when he decided to pull our troops, "We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq." The rise of ISIS in Iraq could have been prevented. After the surge, AQ was a spent, defeated group.
Should we pull out what we have there now then?
I was watching Vietnam in HD last night on Netflix. A lot of parallels could be drawn between how we slowly engaged and grew our forces over there from advising, to airstrikes, to FOB security, to outright offensive operations in 64/65 to how we are toe-tipping back into Iraq now.
The sad fact is that ISIS is gaining control over Iraq. Iran is emboldened since Obama decided to let them get more involved in Iraq, fighting ISIS. If ISIS continues its success, I have no doubt they will strike at America. With their success, it will help their recruiting, including in the U.S. I really do fear we are on course for another 9/11 style attack. Obama's decision to withdraw all of our troops in Iraq has been disasterous. Did anyone notice, btw, that we put troops on the ground in Syria? Can Iraq be far behind?
I guess it's a loose correlation. Go back to my comments on the early days of Nam compared to now.
Yes it was. And Obama's statement was what everybody wanted to believe (including Bush, who had signed the original agreement to remove U.S. troops), but everybody knew wasn't true, it was only stable due to our military presence and was nowhere near self-reliant, as has been shown by the ease with which ISIS runs the Iraqi army out of territory. If the government of Iraq had lived up to its responsibility to fairly govern all of the people of Iraq and not following a policy of avenging 40 years of Saddam's oppression of the Shiites by oppressing the Sunnis, maybe the tribes that supported us during the surge would not have joined ISIS. And we pretty much assured Iran's ascension in the region when we put a Shiite government in place in Iraq - after all, the majority of Iraqis are Shiite as well.
Bush warned what would happen if we pulled out our troops and he was exactly right. Morell said in an interview last evening that pulling out our troops was a huge mistake. Even Andrea Mitchell castigated Obama a couple of nights ago for pulling out. Obama could have had a status of forces agreement if he wanted one. Trying to blame Bush for Obama's decision to pull out is laughable. Bush warned all of us:
Was there any timeline on the one Bush signed? I didn't pull my people until early 2011. Seems like enough time to secure a new SOFA as you and I have gone round and round about.
It's my opinion that there was enough time to politically influence the discussion of extending the SOFA under Obama and Hillary. The decision not to is going to cause a lot more blood to be spilled retaking ground we had already paid dearly for.
Even a devout lib like Andrea Mitchell recognizes Obama's disasterous decision:
ANDREA MITCHELL: Let me say, there's been criticism the way this administration handled that, handled the Maliki. The Maliki government was the creation clearly of the previous bush administration. It's very clear from a lot of observers that this White House was more than willing to accept yes for an -- no for an answer and get out of dodge. To leave Iraq.
ANDREA MITCHELL: Let me say, there's been criticism the way this administration handled that, handled the Maliki. The Maliki government was the creation clearly of the previous bush administration. It's very clear from a lot of observers that this White House was more than willing to accept yes for an -- no for an answer and get out of dodge. To leave Iraq.
Yes, the original SOFA set 31 December 2011 as the date for complete withdrawal. Obama wanted to be able to say he got us out of Iraq but the sticking point on the SOFA -- sovereignty -- was not going to go away no matter who was in the White House. No president in our history has put our troops under the jurisdiction of a foreign power, and neither Bush nor Obama was going to be the first. Anybody who says we could have forced a SOFA on Maliki doesn't know the first thing about how international politics and diplomacy really works. The only way we could have kept a division of troops in Iraq would have been if we had overthrown Maliki the way we did Saddam and put an American in charge of the country. And then we'd have still been fighting insurgencies from both Shiite and Sunni factions.
I completely disagree. Obama wanted out. Panetta, Obama's own Defense Secretary , stated that we could have had a SOFA if we really wanted it. He was much closer to the situation than were you or me. Obama got his wish and we are paying a very dear price which will only get worse.
From the Washington Post quoting a debate between Romney and Obama:
"With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement," Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. "That’s not true," Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn't want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”
Last edited:
I don't disagree with sovereignty aspect of it and falling in under the existing conditions of the SOFA. I believe, as does Defense Secretary Panetta, that we could have renegotiated the terms of the SOFA. It would have required some political influence from the White House via removal of financial aid etc. I don't think Obama wanted to stay in Iraq as it would seem you agree on. To say though that there was no way to renegotiate seems untrue. Everything is open to negotiation. He didn't want to renegotiate and Iraq wasn't just going to out of the blue say "hey, you know we were thinking, let's change this thing around so you guys can stay". Obama was perfectly content to let it happen and then can maneuver and say he was just following the original terms of the SOFA. It was a political gamble and it's going to cost more American lives.
I agree, Obama wasn't interested in keeping troops in Iraq, certainly not anything like a combat force since he got elected and re-elected on getting us out of Iraq. I never said there was no way to renegotiate, I said that the main sticking point on the Iraqi side wasn't going to change, and Panetta is FOS -- he knows that any sort of coercion like what he suggested would have blown up in our faces. Of course it was a political gamble, but whether it will end up costing more American lives remains to be seen.
It comes down to whether or not we are willing to cede Iraq to ISIS and completely pull out, advisers, contractors, etc. It's really only a matter of time before the FOBs start getting hit with more frequency and accuracy as ISIS moves closer and closer. The other option is that we increase our support over there. What we are currently doing is not going to work as a long term strategy.
Are you prepared for the consequences of the boon to recruiting, the fulfillment of them establishing a true and recognized caliphate, and essentially, the entire Muslim world falling under their reign? Make no mistake, if they can legitimize a caliphate that is recognized, that 25% of support grows to damn near 100% for no other reason than fear of repercussions from the Sharia law. The last time something like that occurred was under the Ottoman empire.
WJF's "Doomed" prophecies aside, this would not be good.
Agreed. We can't ring fence ISIS and limit their actions to Asia and Africa. It will come to the U.S. with force.
Once the caliphate (which ISIS has already established) becomes more widely recognized it will catch fire in the region as more and more people, religious leaders, and ultimately state governments accept it. Those radical perverters of the Islamic faith quickly become the mainstream majority and the current moderates join, die, or keep quiet.
"It will come to the U.S. with force."
We will NEVER allow that to happen. There may be more Fort Hoods and Bostons but nothing more and especially not in any force. If something more were to happen, I guarantee that their areas of origin would be turned into wastelands.
We will NEVER allow that to happen. There may be more Fort Hoods and Bostons but nothing more and especially not in any force. If something more were to happen, I guarantee that their areas of origin would be turned into wastelands.
I don't mean an invastion, but 9/11 type terrorism. We are a free and open country with lots and lots of inviting targets. If ISIS continues to be a success their recruiting will get even better.
Yes, 9-11 type terrorism could happen. If it did and unless the will of the American people has not turned into chopped liver, you would see a ten fold 9-11 response. The country would become more united and you would see the agitators and apologists shrink back into there holes.
I'm trying to tell you. It all centers around the existence of unified Muslim recognition of a legitimate Caliphate.
I respectfully disagree. The stronger we let them become the bigger a problem they will be. Its not like they plan to stop their growth. Kill the cancer before it gets to the lymph nodes.
Sorry it was TOTALLY predicted what was going to happen in 2011 when this clown announced he was going to pull ALL our forces out of Iraq. We basically won the war only to have this clown UNWIN it and make us an embarrassment to the world. What kind of foreign policy was that? Oh by the was who was the Sec State during this debacle?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
WVSPORTS.COM Transfer Okani gives West Virginia versatility on both ends
- Latest: MountaineerGuy
-
