In northern Syria, is the US running out of rebel allies?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

obama supported a very poor decision. in your opinion: did he lack the foresight or the authority to alter the agreement?

You're obviously not that well informed. I offered an article a few posts earlier that explains quite crisply what we faced at the time. Bottom line: Obama did not have any options (neither did Bush three years earlier, by the way). So we were set to leave per the 2008 SOFA. They made an effort to put in place a new SOFA for a residual force of about 5,000 but the Iraqi parliament would have none of it. Thus, lacking any mandate from the UN - that is what kept us there from October 2003 through the end of 2008 - and lacking a SOFA that extended beyond the 31 Dec 2011 deadline previously negotiated by the Bush administration, we had no choice but to leave. Well, we could have left troops there without the protections that SOFA offered but obviously no commander in chief would ever do that.

All these realities aside, it was also the thing to do both here and in Iraq at the time as far as public sentiment was concerned. Americans wanted out of Iraq - badly - and Iraqis wanted Americans out of their country - in an even worse way. That's just all there is to it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

ISIS filled the vacuum left behind.

In Obama's #######, and that is a fact. I wonder when Michelle took those away from him.

What? You can't say the proper name for Obama's empty sack?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So am I. We failed to help them build a stable government in the first 5 years after the disposal of the Saddam regime, there was no stable government in sight in 2011 and there isn't one in sight today either. As with Afghanistan, the time we leave doesn't matter. There will be chaos and any gain towards stable governance that was achieved will be gone.

Saddam was removed from this world and most of his officers exiled themselves to Syria, along with a bunch of hardware (no big secret there) . Mission accomplished. War over. The occupation begins and the US starts reconstruction. Bush leaves office. Well done. Obama refuses to negotiate a new status of forces agreement when the old one expired. IS includes many of those very same officers, and they are back. Kurds are holding their own. Shi'ite militias are pushing back IS and doing a little payback on those that stepped aside or flat out ran away when Saddam's former henchmen showed up. Good for them. It appears Obama really isn't necessary after all.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

obama supported a very poor decision. in your opinion: did he lack the foresight or the authority to alter the agreement?

Obama refused to renegotiate the status of forces agreement with Malaki and the Iraqi government. The offer was made, Obama said, "No negotiating, we are going home."

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You're obviously not that well informed. I offered an article a few posts earlier that explains quite crisply what we faced at the time. Bottom line: Obama did not have any options (neither did Bush three years earlier, by the way). So we were set to leave per the 2008 SOFA. They made an effort to put in place a new SOFA for a residual force of about 5,000 but the Iraqi parliament would have none of it. Thus, lacking any mandate from the UN - that is what kept us there from October 2003 through the end of 2008 - and lacking a SOFA that extended beyond the 31 Dec 2011 deadline previously negotiated by the Bush administration, we had no choice but to leave. Well, we could have left troops there without the protections that SOFA offered but obviously no commander in chief would ever do that.

All these realities aside, it was also the thing to do both here and in Iraq at the time as far as public sentiment was concerned. Americans wanted out of Iraq - badly - and Iraqis wanted Americans out of their country - in an even worse way. That's just all there is to it.

Not quite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?ref=topics&_r=0

[JohnR! 5,495]

Our country is glad he didn't, otherwise this thread would be about the thousands of flag draped coffins coming home as a result of a continued occupation of Iraq. Pulling the troops out of Iraq was the only thing W did right about the entire war.

Also you should note the NYT copy is dated 9/22/2012, some 10 months after the withdrawal negotiated by W began.

Obama refused to renegotiate the status of forces agreement with Malaki and the Iraqi government. The offer was made, Obama said, "No negotiating, we are going home."

Edited March 5, 2015 by JohnR!

[Boiler 43,391]

It is what happens when you give little boys big boys toys.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Saddam was removed from this world and most of his officers exiled themselves to Syria, along with a bunch of hardware (no big secret there) . Mission accomplished. War over. The occupation begins and the US starts reconstruction. Bush leaves office. Well done. Obama refuses to negotiate a new status of forces agreement when the old one expired. IS includes many of those very same officers, and they are back. Kurds are holding their own. Shi'ite militias are pushing back IS and doing a little payback on those that stepped aside or flat out ran away when Saddam's former henchmen showed up. Good for them. It appears Obama really isn't necessary after all.

Obama did not refuse to negotiate a new SOFA - there was no way the Iraqi parliament was going to approve one. They wanted us out. Period. Plus, we wanted out. So we left.

From the article I posted earlier:

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.

On the other hand, had we not invaded that country against international law, had we not gone rogue, ISIS would not be present in Iraq today and Iran would be in a much weaker position. If the mission of 2003 was to destabilize the Middle East and give Iran a more prominent role in the region, then the mission was indeed accomplished. Otherwise, it was a giant failure. A victory looks different. Take a look at Western Europe after WWII - that is what a victory looks like.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not quite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?ref=topics&_r=0

I'd take the assessment of a reporter who in 2002 / 2003 played a key role in drumming up the Bush administration's false case for war against Iraq. Sorry but you have to try harder.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Obama did not refuse to negotiate a new SOFA - there was no way the Iraqi parliament was going to approve one. They wanted us out. Period. Plus, we wanted out. So we left.

Had we not invaded that country against international law, had we not gone rogue, ISIS would not be present in Iraq today and Iran would be in a much weaker position. If the mission of 2003 was to destabilize the Middle East and give Iran a more prominent role in the region, then the mission was indeed accomplished. A victory looks different. Take a look at Western Europe after WWII - that is what a victory looks like.

Keep telling yourself that. IS in the form of the Bathists was already in Iraq when Bush sent troops.

Obama failed to head the advice of our middle eastern allies and his own military. Obama's efforts to micromanage the political process in Iraq failed miserably, all the while decreasing the amount of residual forces that would be left behind to a size that would ineffective - 3,500 troops and 6 F-16's. Maliki made one last effort and finally managed to get Obama in a video conference for the first time. Obama's reply - No more negotiating, we are going home.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Keep telling yourself that. IS in the form of the Bathists was already in Iraq when Bush sent troops.

Obama failed to head the advice of our middle eastern allies and his own military. Obama's efforts to micromanage the political process in Iraq failed miserably, all the while decreasing the amount of residual forces that would be left behind to a size that would ineffective - 3,500 troops and 6 F-16's. Maliki made one last effort and finally managed to get Obama in a video conference for the first time. Obama's reply - No more negotiating, we are going home.

IS arose out of AQI - a group that was led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. These folks were NOT in Saddam's Iraq. They came to Iraq once Bush had disposed of Saddam. And it grew from there. The disposal of Saddam was what started it all. There's no argument to be had about that. Despite there not having been any justification for going in, given the geopolitical landscape in the region, going in and taking him out was not just a big mistake, it was reckless and utterly stupid. The elder Bush knew this. It's why he didn't go for it.

[-relo- 105]

You're obviously not that well informed.

You obviously have no tact and lack understanding of complex issues.

Colan Powell said 'we break it, we own it'. WE. It was true then. It's true now. Obama's foreign policy has allowed Isis to become Isis./

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You obviously have no tact and lack understanding of complex issues.

Colan Powell said 'we break it, we own it'. WE. It was true then. It's true now. Obama's foreign policy has allowed Isis to become Isis./

So Powells' quote means Bush broke it so Obama owns it? I am certain that Obama has taken US obligations to Iraq quite seriously vis a vis the damage done to Iraq post the Bush invasion. The quote does not mean that Obama invaded Iraq.

ISIS did not form out of Obamas' foreign policy. ISIS is the even more bat guano crazy stepchild of groups like AQ.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you have to be irredeemably partisan to blame the current administration for a policy concocted and enacted by the previous one.

Noone in the UK blames David Cameron etc for Iraq, they blame Tony Blair. Because if you're being honest with yourself some things transcend petty partisan politics.

Of course, not in the USA where everything that happens has to be framed around the omnipotent reach of whoever is in the presidential hot seat.

Bush and Blair are responsible for Iraq, they were the architects and they orchestrated it. Why are so few people willing to be honest about that? Is it so important to attack Obama that you're willing to reinvent history to do it?

Just effing insane. SMH.

[rlogan 2,036]

The American people were quite happy to let Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other Neocon war criminals destroy countries and kill or reduce to pathetic refugees millions of people. I remember the insanity of overthrowing the government of Afghanistan and not even trying to capture Bin Laden. If you spoke out you were a terrorist yourself.

They were quite happy to overthrow the government of Libya too, and then on to Syria no matter how ghastly the consequences, again and again. It's all I've been seeing since I was born, beginning with Viet Nam. Same story every time - if you don't suffer from the Master Race delusion then it is so easy to see through the lies.

We have euphemisms for the Master Race delusion like American Exceptionalism or the Indispensable Nation. But it is the thing destroying us, and as our founders warned us so urgently - the wars and a standing army are the greatest danger to our liberties. It was not our business to overthrow the governments of Iraq, of Libya, of Syria - and it is no wonder they are an ISIS paradise now. We created the very thing we claimed to be fighting and our own Bill of Rights is but a memory, taken in the name of National Security.

Finding "moderate" rebels to arm and overthrow a government is absurd. We want to commit our war crimes with "moderates"? Naturally there is zero capacity to put ourselves in anyone else's shoes - like what we would do if anyone on earth armed "moderate" rebels in our own country. Street gangs, survivalists, skinheads, anti-abortionists, etc. Why not the Mormons? Maybe Russia should arm them with Toyotas and machine guns.

Edited March 5, 2015 by rlogan