Troops going back to Iraq

[Jim in CT]

US troops are moving back into Iraq to secure the huge embassy. Obama is also considering using special forces to work with Iraqi military to help them deal with the terrorists. I guess Obama learned about this by watching CNN, and decided he needed to do something.

regardless of how Obama felt about this war to begin with, he inherited a much more stable Iraq. Obama announced to the world (and the bad guys were listening) exactly when we would be withdrawing. Many people warned this was a dumb strategy, as the bad guys would simply go into hiding and wait until we left, and then start the massacre.Obama disagreed. Who was right and who was wrong, exactly?

As usual, once enough time has passed to see the effect of his policy, we see a significant deterioration. If we simply left a small peace-keeping force there, then maybe (no way of knowing for sure) we wouldn't be deailing with such an amboldened enemy. So now our forces are going back anyway, but facing a more dangerous threat than existed when we left.

Kudos, Mr President. Kudos. Maybe Jay-Z can write a rap song about your presidency and all the spectacular things that have resulted from it.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Maybe is the key phrase.

Assuming of course, we got an agreement with the Iraqi's to leave the troops there. If they don't want them, why should we stay and risk our troops for a war we should have never been in, in the first place.

We're going to be in the same boat with Afghanistan, should we just say FU to the Afgan gov't and leave the troops there, now, what, 12 years into the war? Risk more casualties of US forces?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Maybe is the key phrase.

Assuming of course, we got an agreement with the Iraqi's to leave the troops there. If they don't want them, why should we stay and risk our troops for a war we should have never been in, in the first place.

We're going to be in the same boat with Afghanistan, should we just say FU to the Afgan gov't and leave the troops there, now, what, 12 years into the war? Risk more casualties of US forces?

"Assuming of course, we got an agreement with the Iraqi's to leave the troops there."

"why should we stay and risk our troops "

Given what is happening there right now as I type this, how can you ask that question?

The answer is this...better to ask the troops to take a little risk to maintain stability, then to watch the country descend into chaos, wait until terrosists take over, and then be in a situation where many more troops are asked to take a great deal more risk.

Or to answer your question more simply...an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I guess Obama never learned that at Harvard.

We created the stable Iraq that existed a few years ago. We could us ethat fact to pressure them into letting us stay. We stayed in Germany, Italy, and South Korea, as a stabilizing presence.

"Risk more casualties of US forces?"

RIROCKHOUND, do you remember an event from not all that long ago, called 09/11? Do you know how that happened? Terrorists were given sanctuary by a government, and allowed to train, plan, and raise funds. Can you really say with a straight face, that we have no interest in preventing Al Queda from running a nation with vast oil supplies? We needn't be concerned if Al Queda takes over those oil fields?

I don't get how you can be so obtuse, and I really don't get how our POTUS can be. You can make a very compelling case that we should not have invaded Iraq. But th efact is, we did invade, and now the question that matters is, what do we do about it? Obama chose to tell the enemy exactly when we were leaving, against the advice of many people. It appears as if, once again, the situation turned to vomit as soon as he got his hands on it.

This is what you get when you elect a guy who spent his whole career in an Ivy League faculty room, and sdoesn't know anything about the way the world actually works. Some ideas sound awesome in the Harvard facuty room, but really aren't all that practical on the street.

[Fishpart]

Another Triumph for Women's rights..

[RIROCKHOUND]

"an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
So, we go back in, we stabilize, and then what. We're there for how long?


" Obama chose to tell the enemy exactly when we were leaving"
So... we could have snuck out? If we just up and left, Al Qaeda wouldn't have noticed?

Again, how long do we have troops at risk, in a country where they are not wanted.

You're right. This is a war we never should have been involved with.

[Raven]

someone has to mark some hot targets with Lazer's

[Jim in CT]

Rockhound -

"So, we go back in, we stabilize, and then what. We're there for how long?"

Until the risk of pulling out is lower than the risk of staying. It's not rocket science.

"So... we could have snuck out?"

I don't know of a military strategist in the world, who doesn't think it's a bad idea to give the enemy years to plan for your departure. The empirical evidence of the last 7 days would seem to indicate that people like me were correct, does it not?

"If we just up and left, Al Qaeda wouldn't have noticed?"

You're either very slow on the uptake, or you are being belligerent for no reason. We should not have left until the Iraq military was capable of dealing with the residual threat. The events of the past few days make a very compelling case that we left too soon. Am I really going too fast for you when I say that?

"You're right. This is a war we never should have been involved with"

I never said I feel that way, in fact I think it was worth it (or at least, it was worth it until Obama gave away everything we accomplished). That's my opinion. What I said was, a compelling case could be made that it was a waste. I just happen to disagree.

What's not in dispute, is this...it was irrefutably a waste if we allow all the gains we made there, to vanish at the hands of murderous, barbaric cowards. I don't see what purpose that serves, unless you aren't rooting for our side.

[buckman]

Maybe it's time to annex Iraq .
This is never going to end .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

This war is close to 1400 years old. The borders they are fighting over were largely set by European colonial powers. You think we will cure it with a few soldiers or even half a million. Or maybe we could set up another puppet for another thirty years, like Saddam Hussein, the shah of Iran, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
We need to spend the money on alternatives to middle eastern oil, like the Pentagon proposed.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You're either very slow on the uptake, or you are being belligerent for no reason.

Am I really going too fast for you when I say that?
.

You must be fun at parties.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This war is close to 1400 years old. The borders they are fighting over were largely set by European colonial powers. You think we will cure it with a few soldiers or even half a million. Or maybe we could set up another puppet for another thirty years, like Saddam Hussein, the shah of Iran, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
We need to spend the money on alternatives to middle eastern oil, like the Pentagon proposed.

Bingo.

'Stay until the risk is less than leaving'

Will we ever get to that point Jim?

But, you got me, I want the terrorists to win.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This war is close to 1400 years old. The borders they are fighting over were largely set by European colonial powers. You think we will cure it with a few soldiers or even half a million. Or maybe we could set up another puppet for another thirty years, like Saddam Hussein, the shah of Iran, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
We need to spend the money on alternatives to middle eastern oil, like the Pentagon proposed.

"You think we will cure it with a few soldiers or even half a million."

The Surge worked. I don't think the US military can help here...I know it.

"We need to spend the money on alternatives to middle eastern oil"

Right. As soon as we all start driving a Toyota Prius and using solar panels, Al Queda will lay down their arms...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Bingo.

'Stay until the risk is less than leaving'

Will we ever get to that point Jim?

But, you got me, I want the terrorists to win.

"Will we ever get to that point Jim?"

I don't know. But if pulling out emboldens the terrorists to the point where thee are within reach of having their country, then given what happened on 09/11, I don't know how you can be OK with that. You'd stand by and watch Al Queda create their own sovereign state? You wouldn't risk mush to prevent that?

If you think we should never have invaded Iraq, that's even more reason why we should have stayed...we broke it, it's our responsibility to fix it. Also, what would you say to the many Iraq citizens who helped us? We left, Al Queda takes over, and the terrorists can start executing the folks who stuck their necks out to help us...

I don't get it, I just don't get it.

I don't think you want the bad guys to win, but you seem opposed to stopping the bad guys before they have their own oil-rich country. I'm stunned you aren't concerned by that. It doesn't matter whether or not you think we should have invaded. The fact is, our departure created this vacuum, and that makes it our fault. Do we not have any responsibility to fix what we broke? Do you tell your kids to only live up to their responsibilities as long as it's convenient for them?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You must be fun at parties.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm the life of a party, a riot!

[buckman]

First of all this incompetent administration should've never been caught this far offguard in Iraq. This is like a big surprise to them.
By the time Pres. Obama reacts to the situation it will be much much worse. It will be about the illusion of doing something.
What a freaking mess the next president is going to inherit!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

How can this be.
Didn't Obozo tell us "Al Queda is on the run" in a speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

How can this be.
Didn't Obozo tell us "Al Queda is on the run" in a speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, they're on the run to kill and conquer any person or country
that doesn't believe the way they do. They won't stop. I feel bad for those
citizens and militia that helped us left behind.
Announcing a time table for withdrawal was the worse thing that could
of been done, and it was done for political reasons.

[striperman36]

ISIS currently controls several oil fields in Iraq and looted the Iraq National Bank Branch in Mosul of about 450 million dollars

[Fishpart]

The American military-industrial-neocon complex wants more war. We must resist them.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

How can this be.
Didn't Obozo tell us "Al Queda is on the run" in a speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he MEANT: running for Office.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Announcing a time table for withdrawal was the worse thing that could
of been done, and it was done for political reasons.

Do you know who negotiated the time table for the 2011 withdrawal? What was the political reason?

If you don't announce the time table, how do you do it - people just wake up in the morning and whole bases that were filled up with 000s of tanks, trucks, and 0,000s of troops have disappeared overnight?

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you know who negotiated the time table for the 2011 withdrawal? What was the political reason?

If you don't announce the time table, how do you do it - people just wake up in the morning and whole bases that were filled up with 000s of tanks, trucks, and 0,000s of troops have disappeared overnight?

Jim???

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you know who negotiated the time table for the 2011 withdrawal? What was the political reason?

If you don't announce the time table, how do you do it - people just wake up in the morning and whole bases that were filled up with 000s of tanks, trucks, and 0,000s of troops have disappeared overnight?

I would assume the Administration that was in power? The Political reason, imho, was so Obama could fill his campaign promise.

You don't announce it. It just gives the enemy the time to sit back on their heels,regroup ,and make plans for what they will do after the withdrawal.
Kinda like what's happening now?

I stand corrected on the first statement, but standby the public announcement giving the enemy
the advantage of waiting out the time. Even gave isis the time to complete a yearbook of their accomplishments. They were so organized and ready they were able to capture Humvees and worse Stinger Missiles capable of bringing down commercial jets.

.

[PaulS]

I think you need to do a little research.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Bush was forced by Congress who controlled the spending. He always fought against a timetable and deadline, for the reasons that are obvious . He vetoed the first attempt at a deadline.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Bush was forced by Congress who controlled the spending. He always fought against a timetable and deadline, for the reasons that are obvious . He vetoed the first attempt at a deadline.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, Bush agreed to the 2011 withdrawal to get Iraq to agree to a status of forces agreement in 2008. Obama tried to negotiate it longer but no Iraqi politician would have it without US troops being subject to Iraqi laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim???

-spence

A fair question.

The withdraw timetable that Obama followed, I believe, was constructed by the Bush administration. To be fair, I don't recall conservatives attacking Bush for letting the enemy know when we were leaving.

However. The fact is, when Obama was calling the shots, many people were telling him that it was the wrong time for a complete withdrawal. Obama said the withdrawal wouldn't jeopardize the gain we had made.

Who was wrong in this case? Spence? Spence??

It is unbelievable how often this guy is 100% wrong.

[buckman]

And let's face it . Obama's horrible lack of foreign policy has led to an emboldened al Qaeda ....that was not the case when Bush left the Whitehouse .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A fair question.

The withdraw timetable that Obama followed, I believe, was constructed by the Bush administration. To be fair, I don't recall conservatives attacking Bush for letting the enemy know when we were leaving.

However. The fact is, when Obama was calling the shots, many people were telling him that it was the wrong time for a complete withdrawal. Obama said the withdrawal wouldn't jeopardize the gain we had made.

Who was wrong in this case? Spence? Spence??

It is unbelievable how often this guy is 100% wrong.

So..
Let me ask it this way.

The Iraqi government wanted U.S. troops out. The American public seemed to want the troops out.

If we had just left, rather than on a 'announced timeline' in 2011, we are still THREE years out from that. ISIS etc.. would still have had 3 years to plan, whether we announced this or not, correct?

So the bigger issue, as I see your (and the Neocon) argument Jim, is that basically we should still have had troops in Iraq.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

So..
If we had just left, rather than on a 'announced timeline' in 2011, we are still THREE years out from that. ISIS etc.. would still have had 3 years to plan, whether we announced this or not, correct?

That exactly was the point I was going to make. It is not like once 1 base was emptied, the enemy wouldn't figure we were leaving all the bases. Blaming Bush for something that happened 3 years later is silly. The whole problem was that the Sunni's (and Kurds) where mostly excluded from the govern. Had they felt included, Iraq might not be in this situation.