Most Americans want War with ISIS.

Your cluelessness goes up with every post you make. I'll tell you what pisses people off, undercunt. When you loudly and repeatedly say better not do x, or else you will cross a red line and force me to do something. Then the bad guys do x and you do nothing. That really, really pisses off a lot of people who were counting on you. And it really, really emboldens a lot of bad guys, undercunt. Originally Posted by lustylad

We agree. You shouldn't write checks you can't cash. Why are you so angry?

Bush signed the SOFA. are you trying to rewrite history? Originally Posted by WTF

Read this and learn. Max Boot wrote it when it happened back in 2011. No re-write here.



Obama's Tragic Iraq Withdrawal


The president says we're leaving because of Iraqi intransigence—but he never took negotiations seriously.

By MAX BOOT
October 31, 2011


Friday afternoon is a traditional time to bury bad news, so at 12:49 p.m. on Oct. 21 President Obama strode into the White House briefing room to "report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year—after nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." He acted as though this represented a triumph, but it was really a defeat. The U.S. had tried to extend the presence of our troops past Dec. 31. Why did we fail?

The popular explanation is that the Iraqis refused to provide legal immunity for U.S. troops if they are accused of breaking Iraq's laws. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki himself said: "When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible. The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started."

But Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi political figures expressed exactly the same reservations about immunity in 2008 during the negotiation of the last Status of Forces Agreement. Indeed those concerns were more acute at the time because there were so many more U.S. personnel in Iraq—nearly 150,000, compared with fewer than 50,000 today. So why was it possible for the Bush administration to reach a deal with the Iraqis but not for the Obama administration?

Quite simply it was a matter of will: President Bush really wanted to get a deal done, whereas Mr. Obama did not. Mr. Bush spoke weekly with Mr. Maliki by video teleconference. Mr. Obama had not spoken with Mr. Maliki for months before calling him in late October to announce the end of negotiations. Mr. Obama and his senior aides did not even bother to meet with Iraqi officials at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

The administration didn't even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate.

The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn't insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn't require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers' excessive demands, but he didn't.

He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to "end" the "war in Iraq." Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.

The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis.

When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks.

There is still a possibility for close U.S.-Iraqi military cooperation under the existing Strategic Framework Agreement. This could authorize joint exercises between the two countries and even the presence of a small U.S. Special Operations contingent in Iraq. But it is no substitute for the kind of robust U.S. military presence that would be needed to bolster Iraq's nascent democracy and counter interference from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional players that don't have Iraq's best interests at heart.

Iraq will increasingly find itself on its own, even though its air forces still lack the capability to defend its own airspace and its ground forces cannot carry out large-scale combined arms operations. Multiple terrorist groups also remain active.

So the end of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is a tragedy, not a triumph—and a self-inflicted one at that.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

.

"Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations."

Does Mr. Boot trump the experts, WTF and UC? Surely not? After all, they post on a hooker board.

"Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations."

Does Mr. Boot trump the experts, WTF and UC? Surely not? After all, they post on a hooker board. Originally Posted by LexusLover

He trumps you, dipshit.

He trumps you, dipshit. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Every post you prove the point (you are an ignorant loud mouth).

I'm not arguing against what was posted as written:

"When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks."

Are you disagreeing with his assessment? If so, his credentials are certainly better than yours!

Every post you prove the point (you are an ignorant loud mouth).

I'm not arguing against what was posted as written:

"When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks."

Are you disagreeing with his assessment? If so, his credentials are certainly better than yours! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Iraq has been a clusterfuck from the word 'go'. From losing $12 Billion in cash, that's right, BILLION, to Abu Ghraib to Mission Accomplished, to do we have a surge, do we not surge, oh the surge is working, wait it's not, to leaving too soon and leaving a power vacuum in our wake that was filled by various groups, not all friendly. It's just been a massive fuckup. Bush shoulders most of the blame but Obama has done his part to keep fucking it up.



(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

If you want to accept responsibility for burnings and beheadings, so be it.

Don't project your responsibility on everyone else. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I know I won't do it either way. Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg would have agreed.

Iraq has been a clusterfuck from the word 'go'. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Which is generally what occurs when a "war" or "military operation" is operated from a perspective of "political correctness" and "polling results."

Does Mr. Boot trump the experts, WTF and UC? Surely not? After all, they post on a hooker board. Originally Posted by LexusLover

And don't forget that LLIdiot also posts "on a hooker board!"

Does that also "trump the experts?"

Does that also "trump the experts?" Originally Posted by bigtex

I hope you are not attempting to qualify yourself as an expert on anything.

As I posted ... I am agreeing with what that expert said ....

Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post

I'm not arguing against what was posted as written:

"When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks."

Like I asked your "understudy"

Are you disagreeing with his assessment?

If so, THE EXPERT'S credentials are certainly better than yours!

Read this and learn. Max Boot wrote it when it happened back in 2011. No re-write here.





So the end of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is a tragedy, not a triumph—and a self-inflicted one at that.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Max Boot is trying to rewrite history. http://www.c-span.org/video/?c450104...rces-agreement The surge was over, Bush thought all was well. Iraq's PM out negotiated them.
00:10:32
George W. BushAnd our plan is working. You notice I say ‘‘our plan.’’ Today, violence is down dramatically. Al Qaida is driven from its safe havens. Sunnis, Shi’a, and Kurds are sitting together at the same table to part—to peacefully chart a—the future of this country. There is hope in the eyes of Iraqis’ young. This is a future of what we’ve been fighting for: a strong and capable democratic Iraq that will be a force of freedom and a force for peace in the heart of the Middle East; a country that will serve as a source for stability in a volatile region; a country that will deny a safe haven to Al Qaida. As a result of these successes, Mr. Prime Minister, the American people are safer.
00:12:03
George W. BushWe’re also signing a security agreement. The agreement provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq’s democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq’s democracy. The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq, a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge.

Max Boot is trying to rewrite history. http://www.c-span.org/video/?c450104...rces-agreement The surge was over, Bush thought all was well. Iraq's PM out negotiated them.
00:10:32
George W. BushAnd our plan is working. You notice I say ‘‘our plan.’’ Today, violence is down dramatically. Al Qaida is driven from its safe havens. Sunnis, Shi’a, and Kurds are sitting together at the same table to part—to peacefully chart a—the future of this country. There is hope in the eyes of Iraqis’ young. This is a future of what we’ve been fighting for: a strong and capable democratic Iraq that will be a force of freedom and a force for peace in the heart of the Middle East; a country that will serve as a source for stability in a volatile region; a country that will deny a safe haven to Al Qaida. As a result of these successes, Mr. Prime Minister, the American people are safer.
00:12:03
George W. BushWe’re also signing a security agreement. The agreement provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq’s democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq’s democracy. The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq, a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge. Originally Posted by WTF

"Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan." No one will ever figure out how to handle that hornet's nest in the Middle East. Now that we can produce all the oil we need, we should just leave them alone, along with the rest of the world - unless they make it worth our while.

Max Boot is trying to rewrite history. Originally Posted by WTF

No he isn't. He gave a factual and comprehensive account of how Odumbo snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. His account is contemporaneous (written at the time, Oct. 2011). So there is no way you can say he was looking back and rewriting history. Which facts do you dispute, fagboy? Or is it the interpretation of those facts that you don't like? Do you think if Odumbo had it to do all over again - knowing what he knows now about the US returning to Iraq - he might have been a little more ENGAGED in the matter?

The surge was over, Bush thought all was well. Originally Posted by WTF

It WAS well at the time. And two years later this guy agreed everything was STILL going well.

Iraq's PM out negotiated them. Originally Posted by WTF

You mean Maliki? The guy who lost his job? Yeah, great negotiator...

.

You mean Maliki? The guy who lost his job? Yeah, great negotiator...

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Well he sure seemed to out negotiate Bush , the crafty negotiator who was able to look into Putin's eyes and see his soul.

Every post you prove the point (you are an ignorant loud mouth).

I'm not arguing against what was posted as written:

"When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks."

Are you disagreeing with his assessment? If so, his credentials are certainly better than yours! Originally Posted by LexusLover

5,000? Isn't that what we're talking about leaving in Afghanistan?