• 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!

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq

I always thought he was a pretty square shooter. Its great to see and Obama surrogate tell the truth for once.

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq | Fox News

October 2 2014

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is lashing out at President Obama’s inner circle for failing to secure a 2011 deal to leave U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively accusing the White House of sabotaging the talks – in turn, opening the door for the region to become a haven for the Islamic State.
Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.

Bingo. Full points plus bonus. Panetta is indeed a straight shooter. He is dead center on the money on this.:yes:
 
We've spent billions of dollars and a decade training the Iraqi army.
They wilted at the mere sight of the ISIS.
I guess we were wasting our time and money....either our training was ineffective or the Iraqis won't fight for their freedom..:shrug:
It's their land.....and they won't fight for it.
Too bad.

I would say most of the problem you speak of lies at the feet of Maliki. It was he who replaced career competent military leaders with leaders that were shia and loyal to him. Most of those Maliki put in charge didn't know a darn thing about the military. Then Maliki used those loyal leaders to suppress the sunni which left a very ripe open for ISIS to do their thing.

The Iraqi troops themselves may have been capable, but when the troops see their leaders flee, natural instinct takes over. Leaderless, they flee too. It remains to be seen how this new government, whether it will be successful in talking the former leaders Maliki canned and replaced to return. If they do, you will see a different type of Iraqi military. The type and quality of leaders can make all the difference.

One thing was for sure, these leaderless troops sure didn't think Maliki's government was worth fighting for.
 
*snip*

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that disagreement between Baghdad and Washington over the issue of immunity for American soldiers from Iraqi law was the main obstacle to reaching a deal to maintain an American military presence in Iraq beyond the end of the year.

Mr. Maliki also signaled that there would be no compromise on this matter even in further discussions to keep a small contingent of American trainers and advisers.

"When the issue of immunity was brought up and the Iraqi side was told that the American side won't leave a single soldier without full immunity and the Iraqi answer was that it's impossible to grant immunity to a single American soldier, negotiations stopped regarding the numbers, location and mechanics of training," Mr. Maliki told reporters in Baghdad.

*snip*

Mr. Maliki, who clinched a second term as prime minister in December after a grueling election, sought maximum political gain for Friday's announcement, projecting himself as the guardian of Iraqi sovereignty in the face of American demands.

"This is a huge victory and a massive success for Iraq and its diplomacy and its will and the will of its patriotic political forces," he said in his appearance on Saturday.

*snip*

Source.

From the OP:

Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.

In them, Panetta explained that Iraqi leaders privately wanted some U.S. forces to stay behind after the formal 2011 withdrawal, though they would not say so publicly. The former secretary, though, said the U.S. had “leverage” to strike a deal, and the Defense and State departments tried to do exactly that.

“But,” he wrote, “the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. … 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.”

He said the negotiations with then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went down to the wire in December 2011, but the White House never stepped up.

“To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them,” Panetta charged. “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 account from Panetta challenges the notion that the Obama administration would have left some troops behind – as U.S. military advisers wanted – if only the Iraqi government had been more willing to negotiate. While Panetta lays some blame at the feet of the Iraqis, he also argues that the White House never seized the chance at a deal.
 
*snip*

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that disagreement between Baghdad and Washington over the issue of immunity for American soldiers from Iraqi law was the main obstacle to reaching a deal to maintain an American military presence in Iraq beyond the end of the year.

Mr. Maliki also signaled that there would be no compromise on this matter even in further discussions to keep a small contingent of American trainers and advisers.

"When the issue of immunity was brought up and the Iraqi side was told that the American side won't leave a single soldier without full immunity and the Iraqi answer was that it's impossible to grant immunity to a single American soldier, negotiations stopped regarding the numbers, location and mechanics of training," Mr. Maliki told reporters in Baghdad.

*snip*

Mr. Maliki, who clinched a second term as prime minister in December after a grueling election, sought maximum political gain for Friday's announcement, projecting himself as the guardian of Iraqi sovereignty in the face of American demands.

"This is a huge victory and a massive success for Iraq and its diplomacy and its will and the will of its patriotic political forces," he said in his appearance on Saturday.

*snip*

Source.

The SOFA that Bush signed said forces would withdraw from all Iraqi cities in 2009 and completely by 2011.
 
Just don't repeat the same mistake in Afghanistan.
 
The SOFA that Bush signed said forces would withdraw from all Iraqi cities in 2009 and completely by 2011.

That was to give his successor a free hand to negotiate his own agreement. In 2008 no responsible official imagined there would be a total US withdrawal.
 
I always thought he was a pretty square shooter. Its great to see and Obama surrogate tell the truth for once.

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq | Fox News

October 2 2014

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is lashing out at President Obama’s inner circle for failing to secure a 2011 deal to leave U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively accusing the White House of sabotaging the talks – in turn, opening the door for the region to become a haven for the Islamic State.
Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.

Leon Panetta should have told the truth much earlier, and made it public much earlier. Anyone who followed the situation knew this but the main stream media certainly never publicized it. Had he made it public at the time, given its importance, things may have been different.
 
That was to give his successor a free hand to negotiate his own agreement. In 2008 no responsible official imagined there would be a total US withdrawal.
Sure. And yet Obama supporters believe this SOFA was etched in stone. There is no excuse for this.
 
We've spent billions of dollars and a decade training the Iraqi army.
They wilted at the mere sight of the ISIS.
I guess we were wasting our time and money....either our training was ineffective or the Iraqis won't fight for their freedom..:shrug:
It's their land.....and they won't fight for it.
Too bad.

If we would have provided the necessary support, they wouldn't have folded up. Notice, now that they're getting air, they're taking back lost ground
 
From the OP:

Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.

In them, Panetta explained that Iraqi leaders privately wanted some U.S. forces to stay behind after the formal 2011 withdrawal, though they would not say so publicly. The former secretary, though, said the U.S. had “leverage” to strike a deal, and the Defense and State departments tried to do exactly that.

“But,” he wrote, “the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. … 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.”

He said the negotiations with then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki went down to the wire in December 2011, but the White House never stepped up.

“To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them,” Panetta charged. “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 account from Panetta challenges the notion that the Obama administration would have left some troops behind – as U.S. military advisers wanted – if only the Iraqi government had been more willing to negotiate. While Panetta lays some blame at the feet of the Iraqis, he also argues that the White House never seized the chance at a deal.


I read the OP and I think Panetta lost his mind. Its like I said, Maliki was presented with the terms and he admits to having rejected them. If a foreign nation wants the privilege of an American defense force then it must agree to our terms. There is no negotiating and Obama was clear on that from the beginning. Either an extension of our presence would come with full immunity for our troops or we would adhere to the withdraw date of the SOA that had already been agreed to.
 
I read the OP and I think Panetta lost his mind. Its like I said, Maliki was presented with the terms and he admits to having rejected them. If a foreign nation wants the privilege of an American defense force then it must agree to our terms. There is no negotiating and Obama was clear on that from the beginning. Either an extension of our presence would come with full immunity for our troops or we would adhere to the withdraw date of the SOA that had already been agreed to.
No troops anywhere are given "full immunity". You've been misled.
 
No troops anywhere are given "full immunity". You've been misled.

I haven't been misled. Those were the terms Maliki was required to agree to for an extension. He chose not to. No immunity, no extension.
 
I always thought he was a pretty square shooter. Its great to see and Obama surrogate tell the truth for once.

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq | Fox News

October 2 2014

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is lashing out at President Obama’s inner circle for failing to secure a 2011 deal to leave U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively accusing the White House of sabotaging the talks – in turn, opening the door for the region to become a haven for the Islamic State.
Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.

Make sure you buy that book of his or you will miss the whole point of this.
 
That was to give his successor a free hand to negotiate his own agreement. In 2008 no responsible official imagined there would be a total US withdrawal.

It was difficult to get the Iraqi's to sign on to the 2008 agreement which had to be rushed into place because the Iraqi Govt. petitioned the U.N. to end its mandate.

U.S. and multinational forces have been in Iraq since 2003 under a UN Security Council mandate renewed annually. But because Iraq's government has requested that the Security Council not renew the mandate upon its expiration at the end of 2008, U.S. officials have had to accelerate negotiations on a detailed legal framework for the U.S. presence in Iraq.

As far as future involvement, it said nothing and the Iraqi's insisted it be that way. Many Iraqi's wanted us out in 2008

U.S. officials, meanwhile, have repeatedly stated that neither agreement will tie the hands of the next administration. The agreements "will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, nor will they specify in any fashion the number of American forces to be stationed there," Ambassador David Satterfield, a senior adviser on Iraq policy, told lawmakers in March 2008.

You should at least understand the trouble Bush had just getting 3 more years in Iraq. They did not want us there period.
\http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111801118.html
 
It was difficult to get the Iraqi's to sign on to the 2008 agreement which had to be rushed into place because the Iraqi Govt. petitioned the U.N. to end its mandate. As far as future involvement, it said nothing and the Iraqi's insisted it be that way. Many Iraqi's wanted us out in 2008 You should at least understand the trouble Bush had just getting 3 more years in Iraq. They did not want us there period.
\http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111801118.html
You speak of "Iraqis" as though they were all of one mind, that there was no disagreement, no fears, no Islamists, and so on. Why not discuss a topic you know something about instead making such assertive errors?
 
Make sure you buy that book of his or you will miss the whole point of this.

That Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice and Samantha Powers have been dictating what America's national defense/security policies will be.

These three individuals are Obama's inner circle and have more say so than all of the generals and admirals with in all four branches of the military combined.
 
I always thought he was a pretty square shooter. Its great to see and Obama surrogate tell the truth for once.

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq | Fox News

October 2 2014

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is lashing out at President Obama’s inner circle for failing to secure a 2011 deal to leave U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively accusing the White House of sabotaging the talks – in turn, opening the door for the region to become a haven for the Islamic State.
Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.

We had over 150K troops in Iraq for a decade and it still didnt want to turn out the way we wanted it. Whats does he want us to do? Stay in Iraq forever and colonize it? :roll:
 
Particularly the bolded. Sure you did. Anything, even a monkey critical of Obama would be on your friends list.

He was right to be critical.

What Obama did was not only extremely foolish but highly irresponsible.

Its a great example of what happens when Politicians and especially Presidents weigh every decision according to how it will affect them Politically.
 
We had over 150K troops in Iraq for a decade and it still didnt want to turn out the way we wanted it. Whats does he want us to do? Stay in Iraq forever and colonize it? :roll:



No one has suggested Colonization, and no one ever suggested that we leave a massive troop presence there indefinitely.

We're just suggesting that he make Foreign Policy decisions not predicated on how they would affect him Politically.
 
I read the OP and I think Panetta lost his mind. Its like I said, Maliki was presented with the terms and he admits to having rejected them. If a foreign nation wants the privilege of an American defense force then it must agree to our terms. There is no negotiating and Obama was clear on that from the beginning. Either an extension of our presence would come with full immunity for our troops or we would adhere to the withdraw date of the SOA that had already been agreed to.

Can you imagine if President Obama agreed with iraq's demand concern? HOLY GEEBUS. Fox would have started a new channel dedicated to President Obama "leaving troops in harm's way with no immunity" They would have started salivating at the thought of first trial of a GI.

Bush caved to every Iraq demand when he signed the SOFA. whining that President Obama should have tried harder to get a new SOFA is just that: whining.
 
That was to give his successor a free hand to negotiate his own agreement. In 2008 no responsible official imagined there would be a total US withdrawal.


What?!? Jack how did Bush caving to every Iraqi demand give President Obama “a free hand”. A free hand would have been to extend the existing agreement for a year and not lock in the date for withdrawl from the cities and the date for withdrawl from the country. A free hand wouldn’t have required Iraqi approval for every action even a supply convoy. You should read what Bush agreed to sometime.


On the occasions that Marine bases in Anbar take rocket attacks, the first reaction is to call Iraqi Police. The Status of Forces Agreement has the Marines’ hands tied.
At the security meeting this week, Marine officers reminded their Iraqi counterparts that US forces were available to help with intelligence and surveillance, biometrics to identify suspects, and defusing explosives.
The security agreement, which requires the Marines to give the Iraqis 72 hours notice to move outside their base and then only with Iraqi escorts, has left part of the battalion with so little to do that more than 500 Marines are being sent home early.
The Captain's Journal » Iraq SOFA


Its no shock to me that the terms of Bush’s SOFA has been underreported
 
You speak of "Iraqis" as though they were all of one mind, that there was no disagreement, no fears, no Islamists, and so on. Why not discuss a topic you know something about instead making such assertive errors?

I can 't believe that you couldn't understand that when I said Iraqi's I meant their President and Parliament. You know, the guys that hold the power. Many of them wanted us out in 2008 and told the U.N. they did not want the "U.N.mandate" renewed. Bush had to scramble and grovel to get the SOFA in 2008 and the 2011 total withdrawal timetable was not his idea either. Bush caved to the Iraqi's out of desperation.
 
We had over 150K troops in Iraq for a decade and it still didnt want to turn out the way we wanted it. Whats does he want us to do? Stay in Iraq forever and colonize it? :roll:
So you would prefer what's going on there now?

The thing is there were not 150,000 troops in Iraq when the present troubles began. There were none. The CIA Director at the time, Robert Gates, expected something over 70,000 to remain in order to maintain stability.
 
I can 't believe that you couldn't understand that when I said Iraqi's I meant their President and Parliament. You know, the guys that hold the power. Many of them wanted us out in 2008 and told the U.N. they did not want the "U.N.mandate" renewed. Bush had to scramble and grovel to get the SOFA in 2008 and the 2011 total withdrawal timetable was not his idea either. Bush caved to the Iraqi's out of desperation.
As with governments everywhere some did and some didn't and you missed that altogether.

Yes, Bush and Rice naturally had difficulty with the first SOFA agreement ever negotiated in Iraq or the Middle East. That should be readily understood by everyone. In fact it was a job well done.

The rest of your post is just too stupid to deserve comment.
 
I always thought he was a pretty square shooter. Its great to see and Obama surrogate tell the truth for once.

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq | Fox News

October 2 2014

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is lashing out at President Obama’s inner circle for failing to secure a 2011 deal to leave U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively accusing the White House of sabotaging the talks – in turn, opening the door for the region to become a haven for the Islamic State.
Panetta, who served as CIA director and then Defense secretary during those negotiations, aired his complaints in his forthcoming memoir, “Worthy Fights.” Excerpts on the Baghdad talks were published by Time.

:shock: One word. Ouch.
 
Back
Top Bottom