• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

The key difference to US military bases in those other nations is the mission - we do not patrol their cities/countryside or zap folks using drones, snipers or special OPs teams - even if the "host nation" should request it since we are not at war there. The failure/victory in Iraq has nothing to do with US bases and everything to do with the US mission. We do not have the resolve to eliminate the threat of terror gangs, groups or acts using serious (and effective) military force; only to mark time until someone else (the Iraqi "security forces"?) finds a way to do so - which is likely to be never.

Well stated. Even Obama's hesitant and weak response to ISIS demonstrates this. His own military staff has stated that airstrikes wont solve this.
 
Or it was just an impossibility. The Iraqi government telling us to kick rocks, and the Iraqi government not granting legal immunity to troops stationed there...

No, I think it was never given the priority it needed. I refer to, of course, Penetta's book and writing on the matter.
We had leverage. We could, for instance, have threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid to Iraq if al-Maliki would not support some sort of continued U.S. military presence. My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq’s stability was not only in Iraq’s interest but also in ours. I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military.

Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy did her best to press that position, which reflected not just my views but also those of the military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs. But the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. Flournoy argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.

We debated with al-Maliki even as we debated among ourselves, with time running out. The clock wound down in December, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Ash Carter continued to argue our case, extending the deadline for the Iraqis to act, hoping that we might pull out a last-minute agreement and recognizing that once our forces left, it would be essentially impossible for them to turn around and return. To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized.
Leon Panetta: How the White House Misplayed Iraqi Troop Talks

"the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. "
"without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away"

Sorry, but this one is all Obama's and his minions. as reported from the first person, the person directly involved in the matter.
 
I reject your use of the word conspiracy. You are trying to paint me as a nut for seeing what is transparently obvious here. Obama is the master of transparently obvious.

Dance away.

:lamo Dont worry we all trust you, because you know exactly what happened. Even tho a historical outline of what happened was presented to you, and Maliki in his own words was presented to you, but we trust you, it was all "propaganda".
 
“In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today"- Ronald Reagan "cut and run" policy on middle east

a limited military around the world, at the cost of 90% of the tax payers dollar? 400 bases in 130 countries is a limited presence? are you serious? Aren't you tired of war, the trillions and trillions of tax payer dollars being spent isnt tiring for you?

I am indeed tried of war, more specifically of losing war for politics. If you decide to lob missles-you DO IT TO WIN, or you DONT DO IT. You fight or you dont. Now tell me WTF out president is doing.
 
Well stated. Even Obama's hesitant and weak response to ISIS demonstrates this. His own military staff has stated that airstrikes wont solve this.

The idea is to look busy (yet not overly aggressive) and ride out the last two years of his CinC duty with mumbo jumbo (a technical political term) about coalition forces making progress in a difficult area of the world and supporting our brave men and women in uniform. Yes he can!
 
Find... what? Where you made a claim that was erroneous? Bringing down violence to 2003 levels does not equate to your claim that "Obama lost the peace in Iraq". There wasn't peace. Hell, your own graph demonstrates that even after the troop surge, there was violence similar to those seen in 2003. The best part is that you've shown a graph which proves your original claim wrong. Obama couldn't have lost a peace that didn't exist. :lol:

I don't know if I should thank you for proving yourself wrong or not.

Peace is a relative term, is this your first day? Compare "peace" in a red state with any democrat city for an example of this.
 
Ok. And you dont remember us boosting aid to Iraq in 2013?


When did we boost any aid to Iraq in 2013? As in Nov of 2013 BO denied any aid to Maliki.


Here's Why Obama's Middle East Allies Don't Trust Him Against ISIS


"The U.S. and the West have avoided the Syrian conflict for two years, essentially permitting the conditions that spawned ISIS," said Clint Watts, counterterrorism expert at the Foreign Policy Institute.

The rub is that Obama decided in 2013 that the U.S. wouldn't “get in the middle of somebody else's civil war," and the White House only allowed the CIA to "provide enough support to help ensure that politically moderate, U.S.-supported militias don’t lose but not enough for them to win."

ISIS and the regime are squeezing the nationalist opposition in Syria's largest city, Aleppo, the only city where the FSA has a significant presence. To defeat ISIS, the U.S. commander in chief will have to eventually confront the Assad regime — a move that would strain tensions with an increasingly assertive Iran. "It's not my job to rate the Obama administration's actions in Iraq," Baghdad Bureau Chief of The New York Times Tim Arango said on Reddit on Monday. "But I will tell you that after 2011 the administration basically ignored the country. And when officials spoke about what was happening there they were often ignorant of the reality." Ali Khedery, the longest continuously serving American official in Iraq (2003-09), told Reza Akhlaghi of the Foreign Policy Association that the Obama administration "betrayed the promises that the U.S. government had made to the Sunni tribal leaders," who had previously fought with American troops against ISIS-predecessor Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during the Iraq War.....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-already-huge-flaw-obamas-145400925.html
 
The idea is to look busy (yet not overly aggressive) and ride out the last two years with mumbo jumbo about coalition forces making progress in a difficult area and supporting our brave men and women in uniform. Yes he can!

Exactly, ride it out, and make it the next guys problem. Even leftists seem vaguely cognizant about it.
 
When did we boost any aid to Iraq in 2013? As in Nov of 2013 BO denied any aid to Maliki.

U.S. to boost military aid to Iraq - Los Angeles Times
"WASHINGTON — Facing a deadly resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, President Obama signaled Friday that he would begin increasing U.S. military support for Baghdad after five years of reducing it.

The new U.S. plan represents a remarkable shift for Obama, whose administration trumpeted the 2011 withdrawal of the last U.S. troops from Iraq as a major achievement and has since shifted its attention to other regional challenges, such as Syria, Egypt and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Following a White House meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, Obama said he shared Maliki's fears about militants' growing foothold in Iraq's western region and would join the Iraqi leader's effort to crack down. Administration officials said this would include growing intelligence support and new weaponry."

U.S. sending weapons to Iraq to help curb al-Qaida advances | Nation & World | The Seattle Times
"WASHINGTON — The United States is quietly rushing dozens of Hellfire missiles and low-tech surveillance drones to Iraq to help government forces combat an explosion of violence by al-Qaida-backed insurgency that is gaining territory in both western Iraq and neighboring Syria.

The move follows an appeal for help in battling the extremist group by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who met with President Obama in Washington last month."
 
Peace is a relative term

No, it really isn't. 2008 had the same level of violence as 2003, the year the war began. Would you say 2003 was a peaceful year in Iraq? Obviously not. Would you say Chicago was less peaceful in 1992 when 800 people were murdered but is now more peaceful because in 2013, 500 people were killed? Of course not. That's absolutely ridiculous. Yet, that's what you're stating here. That Iraq in 2008 - had the same violence as the period when the war started - but somehow it was peaceful. That's sophistry.
 
On the contrary, I believe those lives are worth infinitely more than the politics of terrorists and Obama.
I doubt it. It would be one thing if Iraq attacked us, but they did not.
 
You didn't really address the question. You just recited hindsight.



Good answer. Don't agree with all of it, but it's a good answer. A couple points...

1) Yes, we still have a presence in those countries, but none of them have openly hostile populations that seek to fight us literally on a daily basis. In essence, the wars in those countries are over. Not really an apples-to-apples comparison.

2) We don't have the resolve. To fight any war, IMO. Maybe if we got into a nation vs nation war like WW2 with a clear and defined enemy we might pull up the resolve, but barring that...

Americans dont like to fight wars. Despite what the picture painted by the left we aren't a war-like nation. Our world policy is essentially dont attack us and trade with us. We were united by 9/11, and we know the war on terror isn't going to end like ww2 did. Thats the reality of where we are.
 
Just came over "breaking news" on the telly-o-vision.

Huh. Odd how that decision came just after the election, eh?

Does anyone really doubt that in a matter of time there will be as many or more American and coalition troops on the ground in Iraq and the area than there would have been had President Obama not beaten a hasty retreat from Iraq shortly following his election. It's impossible to be certain, but had the American forces been stationed in Iraq all this time, since 2011, it's quite possible that the ISIL/ISIS/IS movement never would have ventured past the Syrian/Iraq border in the first place.
 
Lmao, you keep making it up as you go. It's not helping you. No no, you said there was peace in Iraq and Obama lost it. That is demonstrably false. Almost 1,000 police officers were killed in the country as well as 8,000 civilians. Hell, even by conservative estimates 2008 was as violent as 2003 (the year the war began). So again - WHERE WAS THIS PEACE?

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/surge-2008/



IBC is a conservative estimate of the death toll. Hell, even the media has compared 2014 to 2008 in terms of violence:

Iraq suffers its deadliest year since 2008 | World news | The Guardian



You made a claim, now you're struggling to back it up. Stop it. There hasn't been any tangible sense of peace in Iraq in 12 years. Please stop making up claims that can be proven false with a little research?

Okay....let's see if I follow.

There was no peace in Iraq you say...

So why did Obama pull out again?
 
Just came over "breaking news" on the telly-o-vision.

Huh. Odd how that decision came just after the election, eh?

Are they wearing running shoes?

Because the CIC promised no American boots on the ground.
 
I've actually come around to agree that we should not have gone in the first place. that said.


Obama: ‘I Promised To End The War In Iraq, And I Did’


He pulled out way to early. it wasn't a responsible withdrawal.
That's Monday morning quarterbacking.
 
Sorry, you can't prove that, ISIS could have grown even if there were still troops there. You FAIL.

ISIS wouldn't have grown into its size, including nearly half of IRAQ if we were there. Our guns would have seen to that, if not the Iraqi military.
 
No, it really isn't. 2008 had the same level of violence as 2003, the year the war began. Would you say 2003 was a peaceful year in Iraq? Obviously not. Would you say Chicago was less peaceful in 1992 when 800 people were murdered but is now more peaceful because in 2013, 500 people were killed? Of course not. That's absolutely ridiculous. Yet, that's what you're stating here. That Iraq in 2008 - had the same violence as the period when the war started - but somehow it was peaceful. That's sophistry.

The war started. And violence escalated, and then dramatically dropped? What changed? One POTUS made a commitment to getting the job done. Conversely, I wonder how many more video's of mass execution you need to see before you realize that another (and current) POTUS did the exact opposite-and look at the fallout.

Besides, life under Saddam, with his WMD attacks, etc wasn't exactly "peaceful", was it. Im sure you can answer that.
 
Back
Top Bottom