- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 22,704
- Reaction score
- 9,469
- Location
- okla-freakin-homa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Re: Gen. Keane on Defeating ISIS: Obama Never Asked Military for a Plan to Get That D
No, the 'bad' guys were bribed to stop fighting while we left (BushII had already announced- in 2008- we would leave by 2011 in HIS status of forces agreement) The IRAQI parliament rejected the new plan for troops to stay past that- should we invade our now allies????
ISIL formed in SYRIA not IRAQ, a separate nation in the midst of an upheaval BushII's 'arab spring' had unleashed. Should we have invaded Syria???
Since 2011 there have been 29 service deaths in Iraq- about HALF the number since you claim Iraq was stabilized in 2011 (54)...
4482 deaths BEFORE the claimed stabilization year and 29 after...
The reason Iraq failed to stop ISIL is domestic politics and not lack of US support. The ONLY way we can 'support' an army that won't fight is replace it's troops with ours-
Neither the American people nor the Iraqi government wants that. gallup june '14- 61% of the American people APPROVE of Obama's withdrawal of US Troops, in oct '11 it was 75% approval. in jun '14 54% disapproved of sending in troops to assist the Iraqi govt.
Slowly but surely Iraq is waking up to the fact they must defend their borders and are slowly beating back ISIL with US help. Can you imagine if our revolution was judged like you judge Iraq. British forces invaded and marched almost at will anyplace in the Colonies they wished- only some real piss poor generalship allowed Rebel forces to win. Washington lost far more battles very badly than he ever won- his 'best' victory could be the night Christmas attack on a merc outpost in Trenton. Stand up face to face battles went overwhelmingly to the British.
So tuck it back in- there is no cowardliness- no 'cuttin' n runnin''- no failure to support, just the ugly aftermath of Imperial Hubris run amok... eace
There were 54 casualties in 2011. Iraq was being stabilized and brought under control. The bad guys were defeated. Cut-n-run has prolong the fight and renergized the enemy. Men are still being sacrificed. The casualties since 2011 are due to cowardice and politics.
No, the 'bad' guys were bribed to stop fighting while we left (BushII had already announced- in 2008- we would leave by 2011 in HIS status of forces agreement) The IRAQI parliament rejected the new plan for troops to stay past that- should we invade our now allies????
ISIL formed in SYRIA not IRAQ, a separate nation in the midst of an upheaval BushII's 'arab spring' had unleashed. Should we have invaded Syria???
Since 2011 there have been 29 service deaths in Iraq- about HALF the number since you claim Iraq was stabilized in 2011 (54)...
4482 deaths BEFORE the claimed stabilization year and 29 after...
The reason Iraq failed to stop ISIL is domestic politics and not lack of US support. The ONLY way we can 'support' an army that won't fight is replace it's troops with ours-
Neither the American people nor the Iraqi government wants that. gallup june '14- 61% of the American people APPROVE of Obama's withdrawal of US Troops, in oct '11 it was 75% approval. in jun '14 54% disapproved of sending in troops to assist the Iraqi govt.
Slowly but surely Iraq is waking up to the fact they must defend their borders and are slowly beating back ISIL with US help. Can you imagine if our revolution was judged like you judge Iraq. British forces invaded and marched almost at will anyplace in the Colonies they wished- only some real piss poor generalship allowed Rebel forces to win. Washington lost far more battles very badly than he ever won- his 'best' victory could be the night Christmas attack on a merc outpost in Trenton. Stand up face to face battles went overwhelmingly to the British.
So tuck it back in- there is no cowardliness- no 'cuttin' n runnin''- no failure to support, just the ugly aftermath of Imperial Hubris run amok... eace