First, don't mistake propaganda to be the facts. Your repeat point, which you quoted in your post, was thoroughly rebutted. However, since you insist on repeating yourself like a broken record, I'm going to do to your source what I've done to others who have done the same thing you've done here... take their propaganda opinion apart piece by piece.
Piece of advice... accept defeat when other posters prove your post wrong. If you insist in pushing the same defeated source again and again, you're bound to regret the answer that you ultimately get.
Second, I wasn't advancing GOP talking points. If you bothered knowing your opposition in more detail, I'm more of a libertarian. If the facts that I advance is also being advanced by a political party or two, it's not because I'm "blindly" following them.
If I'm advancing the same or similar points, it's because the facts dictate a conclusion that multiple people, or groups of people, are going to make. Also, since you keep running from my question like a coward, here it is again:
If I were to go on an internet forum, and say that one plus one equals two, would it be safe for someone reading that to assume that you were the one that made that post because you also agree that one plus one equals two? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Simply copy and paste that question along with the "YES" and "NO" options. Put an "X" in the option that represents your reply, and spare me the nonsense that you'd want to add to that.
Third, you advanced a series of liberal talking points, not something that reflects reality on the ground.
WTF: You do not have a clue as to what was happening behind the scenes....Someone please quote so JD Cornhole can see what a complete tool he is.
I'm sorry, but hiding behind someone else's propaganda piece doesn't give you a clue about what's happening behind the scenes. You, having no combat deployment experiences in Iraq, don't have a leg to stand on when all you have is a propaganda piece to hide behind. I'll take my first hand experiences, as well as that of other Soldiers that were in Iraq with regards to the failure to get a Status of Forces Agreement, over that of your propaganda piece.
WTF's Propaganda Task Master: The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmanoeuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement....
Wrong. When I was there, there was no love between the Iraqis and Iranians. Both Shiites and Sunnis didn't forget the fact that they had fought the Iranians not just on Iranian soil, but on Iraqi soil.
The Iraqis weren't willing to give the impression that they were trading one "leader" for another. Although they were more prone to cooperating with the Iranians, there was no move to collaborate with the Iranians real close... old rivalries die hard here as they do elsewhere in the old world.
This wasn't a result of al-Malaki and Iran "out maneuvering" anybody. This was a result of President Obama insisting on a method of approval he knew for a fact he wasn't going to get.
Both JD and I have been protected by SOFA agreements during our deployments. That SOFA isn't something that's approved by each individual country's parliaments, but by a national level "memorandum of understanding." By insisting that parliament approve it, Obama was guaranteeing that the US and Iraq wouldn't have a SOFA.
Remember, Obama was up for re-election, he ran on a campaign of "ending the Iraq War." He had a campaign promise to fulfill. THAT's the actual "behind the scenes" that happened to prevent us from having a SOFA.
Your dear leader, not collaboration between the Iranians and Iraqis, sabotaged the efforts to get a new SOFA.
WTF's Propaganda Task Master: ...Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence.
Because he knew that although his forces were getting more capable, he knew for a fact that the US was going to need to continue to remain involved with training the Iraqi military, as well as shoring up the logistics capability within the Iraqi Military. With us there, he could assure stability while he was the prime minister.
There was no deceit involved, because the temporary security pact that Bush and Malaki entered with each other opened the door for further negotiations for a follow on security pact. Both sides wanted to continue the momentum that began prior to the end of the temporary security pact.
WTF's Propaganda Task Master: Asked by NBC's Richard Engel on Jan. 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, "This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can't stay in the air."
This was a stupid question. The US military would've been able to remain in major forward operating bases in the green zone. They wouldn't have been allowed to go beyond the wire to conduct combat missions. They would; however, provide training, intelligence, and logistic support. The post 2011 mission would've mainly involved training the force as well as shoring up the logistics capability that every military needs to be able to project power across the country.
These forward operating bases would've either remained as joint operating bases, or we would've had an arrangement to where we would've occupied "tenant" positions within a forward operating base that falls under an Iraqi commander.
One of the combat outposts that we stayed at was a little section within an Iraqi Army compound. We turned that section back to the Iraqi commander after we removed our stuff from there.
We wouldn't have had permanent bases there though.
WTF's Propaganda Master: Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on Mar. 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.
This was only applicable for the SOFA that was in place from the time the agreement was signed until December 31, 2011. This wasn't applicable for any future SOFA that would've been worked on to replace the one that ended in 2011.
During the period that ended in 2011, the Iraqis didn't control our operations... but they did go with us on our missions. There were missions that we did that didn't require Iraqi escort, and that was usually cleared with the Iraqi counterparts.
The agreement that made this possible left the door open for negotiating a follow on agreement, which wasn't spelled out during the SOFA that ended in the end of 2011.
WTF's Propaganda Task Master: But Maliki had a surprise in store for Washington.
No he didn't. His position was consistent... although the country wanted to move on beyond the war, he knew that the US military guaranteed stability while he was in power. This is a fact that's absent today, which has lead to many Shiite Iraqis to doubt him as a leader as a result of the terrorists flooding into Iraq.
The events that happened over the last week were among Malaki's worst fears. He wanted a SOFA agreement partly because of this, but didn't get it. In late 2013, Malaki tried to warn Obama that the terrorists were getting ready to flood in... if only Obama would allow air strikes against terrorist positions...
That's not the action of someone that wanted the US out "for good" in exchange for favors from the Iranian government. He was more concerned about his hide than he was about any benefit that he could get from the Iranians.
WTF's Propaganda Task Master: A series of dramatic moves by Maliki and Iran over the next few months showed that there had been an explicit understanding between the two governments to prevent the U.S. military from launching major operations against the Mahdi Army and to reach an agreement with Sadr on ending the Mahdi Army's role in return for assurances that Maliki would demand the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.
That's not supported by historical fact. The Iraqi Security Forces launched an offensive against the Mahdi Army in 2008. This time, they weren't doing it to stop them temporarily, the Iraqi Security Forces did so with the intention of permanently taking them out of commission.
The Iraqi Security Forces DESTROYED the Mahdi Army's ability to wage continued successful militia campaigns. The Mahdi Army's reaction? One that'd be taken by the side that lost the military conflict... initiate civil disobedience.
A joint US and Iraqi Force capitalized on the successes of the Iraqi Security Force, and built barricades of "T barriers" and other kinds of barriers to force the Mahdi Army beyond mortar and other attack ranges.
It got to the point to where the Mahdi Army couldn't pursue further attacks without suffering tremendous casualties.
They stopped their attacks on the grounds of "species survival," and not because they were receiving orders from Iran.
Al Sadr's Mahdi Army was weakened to the point to where he had no other choice but to work on a cease fire agreement with the Iraqi Security Forces. Al Sadr wizened up and shifted his efforts to another arena that didn't involve fighting with militia.
WTF's Propaganda Task Master: In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable. The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down.
Again, that's not supported by history. Back in 2003, George Bush laid out a plan that involved a complete withdrawal. The negotiated agreement was based on conditions on the ground. It was predicated on the conditions that he set in 2003 becoming possible.
Complete withdrawal of the US military from Iraq was expected since 2003. The question was, "When?"
Based on conditions on the ground, US had anticipated withdrawal in 2011. Given the momentum of the success of the US military, conditions improved to the point to where we could've pulled up completely earlier than 2011.
The Iraqi military had made strides in progress. The last years of US military involvement, Iraqi military was taking the lead in security operations throughout Iraq. The logistics still had work to be done.
Both sides opened the door for a follow-on agreement to replace the one anticipated to end in 2011.
Asking for complete withdrawal did not take George Bush by surprise. That was expected.
WTF's Propaganda Task Master: In the end, however, Bush administration officials realised that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who was then far ahead of Republican John McCain in polls, would accept the same or an even faster timetable for withdrawal. In October, Bush decided to sign the draft agreement pledging withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.
Wrong. George Bush didn't sign a watered-down version of what he wanted in anticipation of what Barack Obama wanted. George Bush signed an agreement that he wanted, which allowed the US to continue to complete its mission. People who paid attention to the news would see the significance of this move.
People who didn't have their heads up their asses would known that the closeout of the Iraq war was settled during Bush's administration. It wasn't something that Barack Obama initiated. So, when Barack Obama tried to take credit for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in 2011, people who weren't brainwashed knew that he was full of Shit. They knew that Pres. Obama presided over an agreement that his predecessor made.
Again, the agreement left the door open for the negotiation of a newer agreement following the one that was to end in 2011.
WTF's Propaganda Task Master: The ambitious plans of the U.S. military to use Iraq to dominate the Middle East militarily and politically had been foiled by the very regime the United States had installed, and the officials behind the U.S. scheme, had been clueless about what was happening until it was too late.
WRONG. The US invasion of Iraq was never intended to increase military or political dominance of the Middle East.
The invasion of Iraq was intended to be a move to counter an asymmetrical threat against the West. If you look at the map the Middle East after the invasion, you would see a checkerboard pattern of Middle East countries in different states of democracy.
Both Iraq and Afghanistan flank Iran. Since the invasions of those two countries, the Iranians had to deal with an increasingly more intensive demonstrations. The Iranians wanted the freedoms that the Iraqis and Afghanis were enjoying.
Notice, that Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey surround Syria. After the coalition invasion of Iraq, Syria was essentially surrounded by countries with more liberal forms of government. Those were bound to have an impact on the Syrian population.
The military invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were intended to be a catalyst to begin a ripple effect of democratic movements in the Middle East and Northern Africa.
It was up to Washington DC to capitalize on these democratic movements. There was no intention to use the military, or use political leverage, to dominate the Middle East. Invading Iraq, or Afghanistan, isn't the action you want to take if you wanted to dominate the Middle East... this wasn't about domination, but about initiating a catalyst for change.
The person that wrote the article that you hide behind has absolutely no clue about what he is talking about.
AAAAAAAAHHHHKKKKK! POLLY WANT A CRACKER? (Whistle Whistle) AAAAAAAAHHHHKKKKK! POLLY WANT A CRACKER? (Whistle Whistle) AAAAAAAAHHHHKKKKK! POLLY WANT A CRACKER? Originally Posted by WTFFixed to reflect accuracy. Now, here's a more factual account, one that reflects reality as opposed to the propaganda that you tried pushing:
In 2011, before Obama pulled out, the Wall Street Journal presented this analysis:Oh yeah, you owe some answers to:
Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
OBAMA'S TRAGIC WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ
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.
A U.S. Army soldier stands by military armored vehicles ready to be shipped out of Iraq at a staging yard at Camp Victory that is set to close in Baghdad.
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, and almost as many civilians died in Iraq last year as in Afghanistan.
So the end of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is a tragedy, not a triumph--and a self-inflicted one at that.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...03931424188806 Originally Posted by Whirlaway
Are Super Bowl fans on the football field playing football in the Super Bowl in lieu of the football players on the football field playing football in the Super Bowl? YES [ ] NO [ ]
If I were to go on an internet forum, and say that one plus one equals two, would it be safe for someone reading that to assume that you were the one that made that post because you also agree that one plus one equals two? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste these questions and their "yes" and "no" options to your reply and put an "X" in the appropriate option that represents your reply. Spare me any nonsense reply that you'd want to add to that.
You're actually doing number 2.