Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
Jeb Bush blames Iraq unrest on Obama - CNNPolitics.com
I am quoting here:
"ISIS didn't exist when my brother was President. Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was President," he said. "There were mistakes made in Iraq, for sure, but the surge created a fragile but stable Iraq that the President could've built on and it would've not allowed ISIS."
So basically he is saying that Bush had mostly won the war until Obama failed to to properly occupy the country.
You don't actually address the main point of the article and also the reason I brought it up. I was making the point that the Bush administration made things up to get into Iraq and were hasty. It wasn't just bad intelligence.I think the consensus at the time was that Iraq was relatively stable but it would require a long term commitment of US forces to help maintain that stability.
And the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) could well have been negotiated and agreed upon had the persuasive Obama actually wanted to reach such an agreement.
It would have been politically hazardous for him.
We all know every POTUS has to give some thought to the political ramification of every decision and policy. It is foolish to think otherwise, no matter who the POTUS is or from which political party.
However, we hacve seen since then that Obama is more than willing to place partisan politics ahead of the good of the country.
And in the final analysis we all can see what happened as a result.
So, whether or not you liked Bushy, you have to admit he was correct on this score.
From the WashPo:
George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
You seem to be implying that a provisional force would have kept Iraq stable. Iraq is a seriously messed up country and is basically made up of a patchwork of ethnic groups that absolutely hate each other. Its government is basically a house full of corrupt weak crooks. Just because there was a lull in the fighting because of a highly expensive surge in the US does not mean that the problem had been mostly solved. Unstable countries like this often have pauses before more fighting. A provisional force would not have been able to stop any of the crazy nonsense that would have sprung up in that God-forsaken hellhole. ISIS spread from Syria and provisional forces would not have been able to stop them. Especially when it would have looked like they were "freeing" Iraq from the Americans. That would have only made them stronger and would have cost thousands more wasted lives of our Soldiers leaving thousands more of our children without mothers and fathers.
It would have taken a permanent occupation force to keep an inherently unstable country stable on a long-term basis. This is not Obama's fault. This is Iraq's and Bush's fault.
If left alone they would continue their migration until they are stopped by colder temperatures (one hopes they don't evolve warm winter yellow jackets!).
But any time any living thing gets near their hive they swarm and attack.
It's their nature. It's what they do.
Now as for the increase in terrorism.
All Muslims are Jihadists. They are commanded by Islamic doctrine to perform jihad in one of the four forms of it. Three being non violent. The other, Jihad by the Sword. But all Jihad is ultimately to help bring about the Prophet's command to all Muslims to help achieve mastery of mankind.
And so Jihadists are continually doing their individual Jihad in their own way in all four forms and in words and deeds large and small. Every day, 24/7 around the world.
They are commanded by Islamic doctrine to perform their acts of jihad in order to conquer the world for Allah and that is what they do.
But whenever Infidels, or Kafirs (any non Muslim is a Kafir) land troops on Islamic lands, no matter that in the case of Desert Storm (in 1990-91) US and Coalition troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia as guests of the sovereign government (the Royal Saudi family), it was an offense to Islam and so the devout Jihadis around the world rose up to try to expel not only the Kafirs but also to expel the Royal family.
That is what devoted Muslims do.
Do we bow to Islamic law?
Do we ignore the Saudi government in favor of religious zealots who want us to convert, become conquered and captives or dead ANYWAY?
It's a complicated matter if you are trying to keep the peace and protect your allies and vital interests.
I will conclude this post with a teaser.
FBI interrogator George Piro said in a CBS 60 Minutes interview that Saddam Hussein confessed to him, after many months of chats and time spent together after he was captured from the spider hole, that he had intentionally bluffed about having WMD's to keep the dreaded Iranians from re-invading Iraq after their bloody war which took more than a million lives combined over ten years of fighting.
And Saddam was more than bluffing about his willingness to destroy Israel if he could. (He'd launched dozens of SCUD missiles into Israel during Desert Storm.)
What was Israel to do when they truly did not know if a WMD 'Sword of Damocles' was hanging over their necks which could wipe them off the map?
What they would do is what they have ALWAYS done when threatened by their hostile neighbors. They eliminate that threat proactively.
But you know how hated Israel is by Muslims.
So what would the Muslim world have done if Israel had launched hundreds of air strikes searching for WMDS and bombing command and control centers without any outward provocation from Iraq to justify their air strikes and/or ground invasion?
That is for another post.
Sorry to ramble.
McCain: "We Will Come Home In Victory" - CBS Newsuly 22, 2008, 5:22 PM
McCain: "We Will Come Home In Victory"
Couric: What does victory in Iraq mean to you? And how long are you willing to engage U.S. troops to achieve it?
McCain: We have succeeded in Iraq. We are winning. We will be making additional withdrawals as everybody acknowledged. We may have an advisory capacity as even Sen. Obama agrees. And we may have security arrangements that are in the interest of both countries. But the fact is victory is being achieved now.
A stable society. Secure environment. Functioning government. Functioning legal system. All of the trappings of a nation where people can feel secure in their future in a free and independent nation. And that's what we've succeeded in the strategy which will then mean we are winning the war and bring our troops home.
Couric: What is your biggest fear about bringing troops home too soon, Senator?
McCain: That we lose the fragile success that we have achieved. Al Qaeda is not defeated. They're on the run, but they're not defeated. So my greatest concern is that we announce a date for withdrawal, which would have had devastating consequences if we had done it when Sen. Obama wanted it done.
And we lose all the hard won gains that we achieved at the great sacrifice of American blood and treasure. I don't want that reversed. Sen. Obama had said, well, if things don't go right, he's prepared to send American troops back. I'm prepared to leave when we have victory; so, we will never have to send American troops back.
CBS Grudgingly Acknowledges Progress in Iraq, But 'Danger' Ahead --11/26/2007 | Media Research CenterCBS Grudgingly Acknowledges Progress in Iraq, But 'Danger' Ahead --11/26/2007
# ABC's World News, November 22:
DAVID MUIR: Last year on this day, Baghdad was in lockdown after one of that city's deadliest suicide bombings. But the headlines in recent weeks have been different. And today, our Baghdad correspondent, Terry McCarthy, got an extraordinary look at the country, traveling with the number two U.S. General there, Ray Odierno. They made nine stops, visiting several communities that have been notorious for violence. And as Terry reports, the optimism, among Americans at least, is spreading.
TERRY MCCARTHY: From the triangle of death south of Baghdad, to the killing fields of Diyala to the north, to the once deadly deserts of Anbar out west, everywhere we went today, we heard the same thing: Violence is going down. No one is happier than General Odierno, one of the main designers of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq.
ODIERNO:I think we can be successful here.
MCCARTHY: We have heard others in the top brass sounding optimistic before, but Odierno is not given to hype. And what was even more remarkable about today's trip was how many commanders on the ground now believe they're winning.
MCCARTHY: The biggest change, local citizens abandoning the insurgency and helping the Americans. Already, the U.S. has signed up 72,000 men to serve as community police. The message we get from U.S. commanders in bases outside Baghdad is pretty much the same wherever we go, cautious optimism. Not only is there a huge increase in Iraqi citizens groups who are coming forward to help the Americans, but overall levels of violence have gone way down.
When the surge started, three or four Americans were being killed every day in Iraq. Now that number has gone down to about one a day. And for Iraqis, reason to be thankful, as well. Civilian deaths in Baghdad are down 65 percent compared to six months ago. Car bombs are down 47 percent. It's important to remember the war is far from over here. Just today, 11 Iraqis were killed in a single attack in southern Baghdad.
MCCARTHY: Unlike some of the other top brass, General Odierno is a fairly straight shooter and calls it as he sees it. And I think it's very significant that today, even though he's not declaring victory in this war, he clearly thinks they're starting to win.
Last edited by Tazmanian Devil; 05-29-15 at 02:26 AM.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002