Obama Blasts Republicans Over Letter to Iranian Leadership [W:251]

Montecresto said:

Theocracies are inherently problematic. And there will be those pleased with Saddam's removal, such as those that readily fed the Bush administration false information that was gleefully received, and then there would be those who would have preferred the devil they knew. Though many of them are no longer talking.

Hays is all those things you said, but promoters of peace make better role models than purveyors of violence.

Click to expand...

Moot said:

The Iranian minister replied to the letter....."The World is not the United States....suggesting the world doesn't need the US to survive and the constitution is not the supreme law of the land outside US borders.

Click to expand...

Montecresto said:

Lol! Tell al malaki.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

GWB left office with renegotiation of the SOFA pushed back until 2011 in order to give his successor (BHO) the opportunity to negotiate his own agreement. Every US military planner, without exception, assumed in 2009 there would be a substantial residual US military presence in Iraq after 2011. BHO's failure to keep that residual force in place was the most important failure in creating space in Iraq for ISIS.

Click to expand...

Moot said:

Except for all the evidence that's not.


Fact is....the ethnic cleansing of entire Sunni neighborhoods and the Shiite cease fire had more to do with the reduced violence during the surge than sending thousands of troops to guard empty neighborhoods in Baghdad.

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

The fact is that Bush tried to negotiate a longer term agreement and failed.

Click to expand...

Even the 3 year one was a bit tricky and caused a little panic when it looked like we would have to leave as soon as the UN wanted us to.

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

Bush fails and you call it accommodating Obama. Is there no end to your support for Bush's failures? US military planners apparently did not ask the Iraqi's what they wanted. If they did they would have known that they wanted us out as soon as possible. That is who Bush was "accommodating" when he signed the agreement to get ALL U.S. troops out in 3 years.

Click to expand...

jmotivator said:

Funny, because foreignpolicy.com had this to say about Obama's performance in the SOFA negotiations:

How the Obama administration bungled the Iraq withdrawal negotiations | Foreign Policy

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass."
~snip

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

Maliki gave us the "bums rush" out the door as soon as he could and had an agreement signed by GW Bush saying that he could. Why couldn't Bush negotiate the long term agreement he wanted? Because the Iraqi's were having none of it that's why.

Click to expand...

...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."....

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

BHO kept lowering the troop level he was willing to leave behind until the envisioned residual force was no longer worth the political effort for the Iraqis.

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

Bush and the Iraqi's signed an agreement to have ALL US troops out by 2011 because that is all the time they would allow. Not becuase that is what Bush wanted. That never changed despite Maliki's flim flamming otherwise. If Bush had not failed to get a long term agreement, Obama would not have been able to withdraw but that is not the way it went down.

Click to expand...

cpwill said:

Funny, then how two different Secretaries of Defense for the Obama Administration who were directly involved seem to remember that differently....



Even your article describes a rapid and full pull-out as "Obama's preference". Witness the results of his policy decision therein.

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

LOL Who cares what they said? It only matter what the Iraqi's did and wanted. The truth is that it was the Iraqi's that kicked us out on our ear with the agreement Bush signed in their hands. We had no "leverage" only a signed agreement to leave. No amount of hedging can change that.

Click to expand...

Thrilla said:

No.. I mean pulled out

Click to expand...

Moot said:

Would you prefer to have US troops charged with crimes, tried in Iraq courts and sentenced to Iraq prisons? Because that's what you seem to be advocating for in order to have US stay in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

GWB went for that agreement because he did not wish to tie his successor's hands. Every DoD planner, without exception, expected an agreement to keep a robust US residual force in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

US forces in Iraq now are immune.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Wrong. BHO kept lowering the projected residual force level until it was no longer worth the political effort for the Iraqis.

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

LOL Bush tried and failed to get any long term agreements to stay in Iraq. Stop covering for him he is not worth it. And stop with the DoD planners, they had nothing to do with the Iraqi Govt. and their desire for us to leave.

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

Because they were asked back by the new Govt. and Maliki is gone.

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

They never agreed to a SOFA at any troop level so that too is a falsehood.

Click to expand...

Moot said:

Would you prefer to have US troops charged with crimes, tried in Iraq courts and sentenced to Iraq prisons? Because that's what you seem to be advocating for in order to have US stay in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

The Iraqis would have liked for us to stay if we were going to stay in sufficient force to make a difference.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

US forces in Iraq now are immune.

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

They had plenty of chances to let us stay but they told Bush no long term agreements and we are kicking you out in 3 years. They kept their word.

Click to expand...