Breitbart reports that the president jumped back on the “Blame Bush” bus the other day, his contention is that if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, removed Hussein from his throne, there would be no ISIS;
“ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences which is why we should generally aim before we shoot,” Obama said in an interview with VICE News, referring to the Iraq war launched by Bush.
Obama pointed out that his fight against ISIS had a 60 country coalition, which would “slowly push” the terrorist group out of Iraq.
Simply defeating ISIS, however, would not be enough, Obama explained, because of “disaffected Sunnis around the world.”
It’s all so easy isn’t it? Leave Hussein in power and Iraq would be a peaceful place. Well, except that, for one reason Hussein would be 78 years old now and his two blood thirsty sons would probably be running the country, which was teetering on bankruptcy because of their war with Iran and their invasion of Kuwait. Remember that Hussein invaded Kuwait for their oil so he could pay off his country’s debts after the war with Iran.
While he was trying to kill his own people (Shiites) the US and it’s partners were flying protection for them over the so-called no-fly zone and Hussein’s air defenses were taking pot shots at them. We had a stockpile of equipment lagered in Kuwait in order to prevent a repeat of 1990. Every time Hussein farted, Clinton had to send US troops to operate the war machines. that happened no less than three times during Clinton’s tenure.
And, oh, yeah, there was Operation Viking Hammer in which the US sent special forces troops to help the Kurds battle against Ansar al-Islam, an al Qaeda-affiliated group of Salafists who had been fighting the Kurds for two years before the US took Baghdad. Ansar al-Islam became the Iraqi insurgency after conventional troops arrived. Experts also claim that Ansar al-Islam were working on chemical weapons in the town of Sargat.
So tell me again why leaving Hussein in his throne was a good thing?
When Bush left office, the insurgency was broken. It was this administration that fostered the environment in which ISIS gained strength. The US let everyone else take the lead in Syria and Libya instead of standing firm against the Iranians and Russians who supported both Assad in Syria. That fueled the rebellion and became the new training ground for ISIS warriors. It gave them a taste for blood.
Then when no one did anything when ISIS took Fallujah more than a year ago, it gave them the confidence to march on Baghdad – and voila! Here we are.
The only thing I’d complain about is the fact that Bush the Senior didn’t let us boot Hussein out of Baghdad in 1991 before there was an al Qaeda, when we were at the gates of Baghdad and had the trained and equipped force to do it with in the theater of operations. We also had the justification. But the pointy-headed hand-wringers wanted something they could call a clean victory.
And this shit about an economic solution to terrorism is just naive. You just have to make life as an ISIS warrior more difficult than returning home to the goat farm.
Paging Lars to Aisle 3.
Barry just pissed that Bibi will be around for a long time and that presence shows what a loser Dear Leader is in contrast.
I am done with zerobama. I can’t listen to his lies and childish behavior anymore.
Even worst, there is a new generation of Soldiers who are extemely liberals. The other day, while I walked by two SPCs, I heard one ask the other “tell me one thing that Obama has done wrong?”. I almost puked.
Remember when your doctor told you to finish the antibiotics even if the symptoms went away otherwise the virus might come back stronger?
I understand what you’re trying to say, but antibiotics are ineffective against viruses. Maybe it’s bacteria you’re thinking of.
“Mission Accomplished”
-GWB, 2003
“Mission Accomplished”
Crew of USS Abraham Lincoln, 2003.
Do some research.
I really hate the way disingenuous people pretend not to know that any military effort includes a lot of missions.
The ship accomplished its mission, and came back. Meanwhile other units were going out. The banner did not overstate anything, nor did George Bush’s speech on that day, which specifically did not declare victory, and was very clear that the war had not yet been won.
“In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
-GWB, 2003
In January 2009, Bush said that “Clearly, putting ‘Mission Accomplished’ on an aircraft carrier was a mistake
“In an interview on the Sirius XM program “PoliOptics”, deputy assistant to President Bush for communications Scott Sforza said that people who were not aboard the ship do not understand the meaning of “mission accomplished,” but those who were there do”. Then he followed up with, “I think that the press really mischaracterized the entire event,” Sforza told host Adam Belmar. “And I say this because we personally met with those on the ship, and the intent of the message that was put on the ship ‘mission accomplished’ was really aimed at the families on the shore.”
Seems pretty straight forward.
“We will not be sending troops back into combat in Iraq,” – President Obama, June 2014
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-obama-no-troops-iraq
First, “the Battle of Iraq” was one phase in an ongoing campaign. That phase was over. A new phase opened up.
Second, what he also said, that you ignored:
“We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We’ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.
“We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.
“And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.
The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.” – President Bush, May 1 2003
That’s not him declaring victory. In fact, this is all he said:
“…my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” – President Bush, May 1, 2003, in the same speech.
He said nothing about “minor combat operations” being over. In fact, in the parts that I quoted, he clearly indicated that we were going to be there for a while, and laid out the conditions needed for us to pull out.
I combat deployed to Iraq as an Infantryman. I know for a fact that we left the conditions in place for success… what was required was political will from the White House… of which there was none. Obama failed to facilitate the aftermath of our major military involvement by making it harder for the Pentagon to get the agreements it needed for Soldiers to remain behind… enough Soldiers… to build on our successes by providing further training to the Iraqi military and police.
Those that say that the banner was the ship’s idea are correct. I was in the Navy before I was in the Army. The ships that I was on did the same thing. The intent was to communicate a message from the ship to friends, family, and the wider community.
Hey, “If you like your current health plan, you can keep it!” Seriously, would Barry ever lie?
Shoulda, coulda, woulda.
All we/they do is dwell on the past so others can be blamed for our/their failures today.
Yesterday is gone. Today is half over. So WTF are we/they going to do about tomorrow – you know, the timeframe that we/they CAN influence and do something about?
well, Øbola is contemplating making voting mandatory for everyone. That’ll solve all the problems.
http://nypost.com/2015/03/19/obama-floats-idea-of-making-voting-mandatory/
I might be able to live with that as long as there is a “none of the above” box to check off for each race on the ballot. If “None of the Above” gets the most votes, then the losing candidates would become ineligible to run in a new election.
UpNorth…And pray please that HIS definition of “all people” does not include illegals.
Oh, I think most of us here know why he said what he said.
Cue Lars to show up and shout “racist”.
So, but for Iraq 2003, there would be no ISIS, eh? How very convenient and self serving of the Golfer in Mom Jeans to say so. Even if one were to agree that ISIS beginnings, the germ of its eventual birth, is traceable to Bucca prison, that’s a helluva stretch to suggest that if no US troops entered Iraq 12 years ago that ISIS would not have been born. It may not have been called ISIS. It may have called itself al-Qaeda 2.0 but it, in some form and by some name, would certainly have existed. These terrorists have spent Obama’s first and second terms preparing, planning, recruiting, and training in Syria and elsewhere. It was Obama who encouraged and abetted the Arab Spring Flings that caused such mischief and uncertainty in the region. It was on his watch that ISIS grew and strengthened. No, it’s his baby.
▲▲▲ Like ▲▲▲
“No, it’s his baby.”
Amen, Brother!! Hook, line, and sinker.
But the Obamanauts, sycophants, Farrakhans, Sharptons, Jacksons, et al, will never admit to anything of the kind.
This comming from the guy who said ISIS was the JV team? And pull us out with ensuring the reagion/country was stabilized?
Why is it it’s aleays someone else fault with this Admimistration?
Sorry he’s been in office over 7 years now. The old addage ‘you break you bought it’ comes to mind.
Europeans (and by assumption, us) have been mucking with the sand-folk since 1096.
Every time we do something, it gets worse .. and more GIs die.
Spaniards, Portuguese, residents of Sicily/Sardinia/southern Italy, and residents of southern France might disagree a bit with your start date.
Agreed. The Persian Wars do seem to have an earlier start date than 1096 CE. I think it’s one of those “Could it be me?” moments when the “sand-folk” look in the mirror.
What do you mean,”sand-folk”?
October 21, 2011
After nearly 9 years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” said Mr. Obama.
He said the last American troops will depart the country by January 1 “with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops.”
Mr. Obama said Friday that “Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security” and said that the relationship between the United States and Iraq going forward will be one of equals.
“It will be a normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” he said.
Mr. Obama discussed the planned announcement earlier in the day with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki over secure video conference. He said al-Maliki “spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future,” and that the two leaders are “in full agreement about how to move forward.”
If he was so sharp and able to trace the roots of this issue all the way back to 2003 it’s too bad he didn’t figure it out before pulling out the only remaining stabilizing force in Iraq back in 2011..
In fact as I recall when he and Romney discussed this issue and the status of forces agreement during the debates the president stated leaving troops would not help us in the middle east.
“That’s not true,” Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”
Nothing like 20/20 hindsight to make one appear to have a true handle on the middle east.
Bush/Cheney had no long term plan, that was clearly obvious right after we had a Mission Accomplished moment with President Bush. No student of history could actually believe the three disparate provinces of the former Ottoman Empire could actually be forged into a multi-religious single state with a unity of purpose and sense of nationalism. Unless one intended to occupy it for 60 years or use the brutally oppressive tactics of the man we toppled.
Bush had no plan, and Obama had no plan and now we play the blame game. The guy who claimed he would clean it up is as useless as the guy who started it, except this new guy lies about what he’s doing where the previous guy just had no plan and apparently no idea to find one.
Oh well, perhaps one of the geniuses running in 2016 will be better versed on the history of Iraq. Not that I’m holding my breath.
Or you could blame President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who surrendered power to Saddam Hussein in 1979.
Just keep rolling back the clock Barry. It’s your, you now own it. Worst President ever.
Lawyers have a concept called “causation,” which limits the liability of a person where other forces intervene to actually cause damage. Where the damage is actually caused by an intervening force or action, then the original person is not responsible for the damage. This concept applies, here.
George Bush left office with the situation in Iraq relatively well in hand. The next step was to keep the situation in hand, by entering into a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq. This would be a negotiation, and the US would predictably have to make some sort of accommodation to Iraq’s sovereignty, as has happened in other countries in the recent past. George Bush warned that the Status of Forces agreement was necessary to keep the gains that had been made, and thereby stabilize Iraq against the defeated terrorist forces.
The negotiations hit the very first, predictable stumbling block, and Obama administration withdrew from the talks and refused to return, leaving the Iraqis slack-jawed in surprise. Iraq is a place where negotiations invariably last past every deadline, and where the last niggling detail must be settled. The Iraqi members of parliament have followed the Ayatollah al-Sistani’s instruction to take their time and make good agreements enthusiastically. To them, Obama’s withdrawal, and more importantly his refusal to come back, was a sign of bad faith.
George Bush left a perilous but workable situation behind, and Obama utterly failed in his responsibility to follow through. Obama’s actions were an intervening force that negated the progress George Bush’s administration had made. The rise of the Daesh in Iraq was the predictable result. George Bush is not responsible of Obama’s failure, and Obama’s failure breaks the chain of causation. George Bush did not cause the rising of the Daesh in Iraq: that was caused by Obama.
Great summary, thanks.
Except one could argue that Bush and Cheney never told the truth in explaining exactly how long Iraq would require to be stabilized or they didn’t know. Neither of those is a great scenario.
It wouldn’t have matter if we left in 2011 or 2020 the reality is that in order to unify the three Iraqi tribes and create a nationalistic society of pluralistic religions there would be a requirement for a generational occupation by US or other stabilizing forces.
You are spot on in Obama’s inability to negotiate SOF, but you are far too kind to the bumblers who preceded him in excusing the notion that things were relatively well in hand. They were if one accepts that another 40 years of occupation was required to stabilize the region and a conversation along those lines was never had by Bush/Cheney or Obama/Biden or any of the wizards at the Puzzle Palace.
We’ve remained in Korea for 65 years as a stabilizing force and the South Koreans actually want us there…
Does anyone actually believe that Iraq would have been stabilized in less than that amount of time especially when at any given time only about a third of the populace wanted us there?
There was always going to be a vacuum in any situation that tried to create that single nation status with a short occupation period.
No plan for for post invasion was a serious error, no plan to remain by Obama another serious error. The difference is that Obama has consistently misled or lied about the reality on the ground in Iraq whereas Bush and company seemed to be making it up as they went…with at least more success in that regard.
Not true:
“We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We’ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.
“We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.
“And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.
“The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.” – President Bush, May 1 2003
Contrary to what the libtards like to argue, OIF was very much a part of the greater war on terrorism. Starting in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, George Bush warned that this was was going to take a long time, and that there would be “visible” and “invisible” parts… that there would be battles that took place and once they were over, more battles in the future.
He touched up on unrestricted warfare of which OIF was a part of. If you took the trend of all of his speeches related to war, including the one in Iraq, that trend warned that this wasn’t going to be a quick thing, and that a lot of patience was going to be required.
I don’t have a huge problem with Bush, but you and I will have to disagree on what constitutes the truth of a statement like, “we will stay until we’re done”.
What does that mean? Does any part of that state that we need a 40 year occupation?
It’s what’s required but I think if congress was told we will need to occupy Iraq for 40 years with a stay behind force of 10,000 or so soldiers to insure stability it might have taken a bit more effort to convince them to authorize but at least had it been done that way the public and the congress would have no recourse in claiming there was some shorter time frame in the expectations.
Sure, VOV. After all: every other POTUS who was in office during a war or occupation told Congress precisely how long those efforts would take up-front – right?
My point is that in such matters, the enemy has a vote. For that reason, durations of wars, counterinsurgencies, and occupations are essentially impossible to predict.
You know I didn’t mean exactly that, but unlike some of those other presidents I don’t think Bush had any clue what he was getting into. The same with Obama, neither of them were particularly cognizant of the reality on the ground.
In Vietnam there was a decided ignorance about how things were on the ground as well, when we decided we had enough that turned to chaos as well as I recall with an eerie similarity to the current mass of chaos.
At what point should I expect my duly elected leaders, some of whom are supposedly the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth, to read a fucking history book and buy a vowel Mr. Sajak?
The problem, amigo, is that the book you’re looking for . . . doesn’t exist.
All history says is that war is hard, and you can’t predict how long it will last or what the aftermath will bring. It’s silent on how to predict outcomes.
Remember: about 240 years ago, the largest and most powerful empire on earth managed to lose a war to a bunch of ragtag rebels who didn’t want to pay their taxes and got quite vocal about it. And 40 years later, that same band of rebels nearly lost their asses – and their freedom – to that same empire, only being reprieved at the last minute after seeing Washington burned.
Waging war is hard. Predicting wars’ outcomes is harder.
But both pale in comparison to figuring out the long-term consequences of a particular war in its immediate aftermath. I don’t think anyone really knows how to do that.
Hondo, you know the history of Iraq.
You know it never existed prior to the mid 1920s you know it was a giant pain in the ass for the Ottomans to maintain peace in the three provinces. You know the British arrogantly manufactured a single nation thinking all muslims were the same. The history has been checkered. Saddam kept the piece with brutal oppression.
Anyone coming by in 2001 thinking, we’ll knock this guy off, leave some troops behind when we’re done and it’s all good wasn’t being honest or wasn’t in possession of an accurate assessment or plan for Iraq.
The second guy in the pipeline, the indomitable Mr. Obama the world intellect comes along and supposedly possesses an even greater intellect than the first guy. Decides to leave, place devolves into chaos. Both men were incapable of assessing the actual reality of that nation. Both men are responsible for the outcome, we can argue which is the bigger the fool. I suspect the second because when he left there was zero evidence Iraq would stand on its own. But both men were and remain firmly on the hook.
Obama is certainly playing at revisionist history, but it doesn’t excuse Bush and company from having no plan other than toppling the regime.
See below. Both have plenty of company.
Folks like to mention how the Russians and the British paid a price for their involvement in Afghanistan. What happened when the Russians were there? Insurgency coming in from all directions in the Arab world.
In 2002, the US military was facing the same reality. Then we entered Iraq. Now, we ended up facing an insurgency coming in from all directions in the Arab world into Iraq.
What was the difference between the general terrain in Afghanistan to the general terrain in Iraq? One of them allows us to leverage most of our military hardware and the other one had terrain that actually negated some of our military hardware advantage. Just ask the Soviets.
After the Surge, the anti-Iraqi force were forced to see the reality that they were not going to defeat us in the long run. It dawned on them that as soon as the Iraqis truly took over after we left, the gloves were coming off.
That flood of insurgents headed toward Iraq decided for an easier target. Enter renewed violence, increased violence, in Afghanistan. But, by then, we had time to stand up and Afghan security force, an Afghan army, and give them training.
Do you see what happened here?
Anybody looking at the map the Middle East right now will see a checkerboard of different countries in different stages of democracy. Again, this is consistent with many of the speeches that George Bush gave in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on US soil.
Going into Iraq, after invading Afghanistan, made perfect strategic sense. It took into effect historic realities. As democracy progressed in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it was only a matter time before other people in the Arab world were going to want to enjoy the same thing.
The Arab Spring was due to happen, not “if” but “when”. I was not surprised when it did happen. I predicted that during online debates since 2004.
I know for fact that the Iraqi people, regardless of religious sect, regardless of tribal affiliation, wanted what we were helping them get. The insurgency did not represent the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people hated them. They wanted stability, democracy, economic growth, etc. They understood that the insurgency wanted power, that they did not care about the Iraqi people.
The insurgents were called the Anti-Iraqi Force for a reason.
This is not a case where a bunch of Western powers screwed things up in the Middle East during the 19th and 20th centuries, and now we’re “suffering” because of it. This is a case of people, groups of people, fighting and working toward an objective regardless of what happened in the past.
I saw it working in Iraq. Any argument about Western powers, or previous empires, messing things up in the Middle East is null and void given the fact that the majority of Iraqis wanted the same thing that we wanted to help them achieve.
Cold hard reality is that the ideology that drove 19 men to conduct the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to attack towns in southern Philippines, southern Thailand, etc., the ideology that drives Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, etc., is an ideology that has been at war with our civilization (Western) since the beginning of the dark ages.
Its goal is to unite the whole world under radical Islamic law.
Either we change the geopolitical and geo-economic outlook in that area, or the radical elements in that area will succeed in their manifest destiny: global Islamic law.
There is no third or other option, either we succeed or they do.
Thanks for the illumination and taking the time to respond. I won’t dispute the current president is an idiot and I’m not a fan of his, I think I wanted to explain I am also not thrilled with much of what transpired previously. I know you think Bush had a long range plan but I don’t believe that. There was talk of a reduction and pullout before Obama came into office. I always felt any reduction prior to 10-15 years of occupation would be a mistake. Dropping to a training/support role before that would hurt, and leaving like Obama did a huge mistake. In any event I will accept what you wrote as accurate and move forward.
My comment about the history wasn’t specifically tied to the Russians or the British but to the Iraqi people themselves. The Kurd/Sunni/Shia differences have always been there, it will always be there.
The question for the long term stability for me is what is the viability of a single nation of those three groups developing the nationalism necessary to succeed while accepting the concept the other groups’ religious views can’t be an obstacle to nationalism?
Do you really think we can change that geopolitical outlook to be a true nation or do you think the more likely scenario is three smaller nations like what happened in some of the Eastern European nations?
I am not convinced that the religious aspect can be overcome and the distrust that accompanies that religious difference may prove an insurmountable obstacle.
It would not be the first, nor I expect the last, time a set of internal differences allowed an intruder to settle the matter in a way none of those with differences had in mind.
Veritas Omnia Vincit says: I know you think Bush had a long range plan but I don’t believe that.
The themes of the speeches that George Bush made starting in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks identified a long-term plan to deal with this war. That long-range plan is based on an understanding of history, unrestricted warfare, economics, etc.
I clearly remember him in one of the speeches, telling the military to be ready. In that speech, and in others, he pointed out that this was going to be a prolonged war. He pointed out that there were going be many campaigns, and that this was not going to be concluded soon.
Te wit:
President Bush laid out the groundwork of who we were facing as enemies. This was just a scratch on the surface.
In that same speech, he dropped a hint of what this was going to be like:
This statement did not indicate a short-term war. That statement argues that we were going to be at war for a long time.
It also accurately pointed out that the war terror was not restricted to Al Qaeda, nor was it restricted to just Afghanistan.
In the same speech, he goes into more detail of what’s entailed:
He accurately indicates that the War on Terrorism is “Unrestricted Warfare.” By extension, this war was going to be protracted, conducted in more than one location, and “fought” in many spheres warfare.
A good book to read to scratch the surface on what the War on Terror is, is a book titled “Unrestricted Warfare”.
Veritas Omnia Vincit says: There was talk of a reduction and pullout before Obama came into office. I always felt any reduction prior to 10-15 years of occupation would be a mistake. Dropping to a training/support role before that would hurt, and leaving like Obama did a huge mistake. In any event I will accept what you wrote as accurate and move forward.
Those talks were based on conditions on the ground. Iraq started to recover from decades of neglect almost immediately after the invasion. One of the reasons to why they had rolling blackouts was because the existing electronic infrastructure was not able to handle the increased standard of living in Iraq.
What didn’t get into the news that much was the fact that Iraq improved in leaps and bounds. They did so economically, politically, militarily, etc. Before US combat units had to be out of Iraq, the Iraqi military was kicking butt and taking names. They had the initiative relative to the terrorists/insurgents. The Iraqis were more than ready to take on the fight with lesser and lesser US combat involvement.
By the time the end of 2011 came around, the United States and Iraq were well ahead of the planned progress on the ground. We didn’t need to wait 10 years. We did however needed troops to remain in the Green zone to conduct maintenance training for the Iraqi military and to help the Iraqis build and improve their ability to project their military throughout their country.
Eventually our military relationship would’ve evolved, just like our military relationship with Germany, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, etc.
Remaining mainly as a training operation post 2011 was a right fit. Unfortunately, there was no will in the White House to make that training happen the way it needed to happen.
When I was deployed there, those differences didn’t matter to the regular folk. We were in a predominantly Sunni Arab area of Iraq. We saw a procession of Shiites headed toward a Shiite built mosque in the area. The Sunnis in that area respected them, and gave them their space.
The fact that other Iraqis in the country did not share their same religion wasn’t an issue of the majority of folk there. Their biggest issue was representation. The Sunnis were worried as hell that the Shiites would vote in a government that only represented the Shiites. At the same time, they knew that they did not have the numbers to put Sunni politicians in the majority.
They understood that the minority religions were going to have to cooperate with the majority religions to run the country, and vice versa.
When we were there, the government was in place that sought to represent the needs of all major and minor groups. When the United States left, Al Malachi himself went against what the United States military, Iraqi military, and what the Iraqi people, wanted.
That also contributed to the breakdown that led to ISIS doing what it did there. One of the things not getting in the news as much is the fact that Iraqi militias are helping the Iraqi military, regardless of the composition (Sunni/Shiite) of one group or the other.
Based on what I’ve seen when I was deployed there, Iraq will move forward with those three major religions, and the minor ones, working together. There are some instances of animosity between those groups, but that doesn’t dominate the geopolitical picture in St Iraq. Right now, all three major religions, and the minor ones, are represented in the Iraqi forces, and Iraqi militias, that are fighting back against ISIS.
The Iraqis have communicated with Muslims/Arabs, and other parts of the Arab world. They’ve seen how what we’ve help them set up is helping them relative to their counterparts in the other parts of the Arab world. They want nationalism, they want to move forward, they want stability, etc. They’re willing to overlook the fact that there are differences in opinions with regards to religion in order to accomplish that goal.
If all the British had to fight was a bunch of “ragtag rebels”, the British would’ve won. I don’t say this lightly, because my great (6 times) grandfather, and others in my direct ancestral lines, fought against the British during the American Revolution.
There were times, during the beginning of the American Revolution, when either the British or their mercenaries came close to destroying the core of the American Revolution. Then we had issues with many in the militia, many of whom were civilian at heart, who wanted to quit when the going went tough.
After the famous battles that many people might remember, that started American Revolution, the British started kicking patriot ass until Gen. George Washington and others managed to get the militia to start acting like a real military. That wasn’t enough against the most powerful nation on the planet back then either.
We had the combined strength of the French, Dutch, and Spanish militaries on our side. The combined force essentially negated the advantages that Great Britain had. The Spaniards fought the British in Florida, and in the area between the Mississippi River and the Appalachian Mountains.
The Spaniards owned many of the areas west of the Mississippi River. Many colonials escaped the war and its impact by crossing the Mississippi River into the Spanish Empire as refugees.
The French fought the British on the East Coast and elsewhere.
The battles didn’t just take place here. The war that was kicked off with the “shot heard round the world” ended up spreading into the Caribbean, European waters, South American waters, and Asia.
Great Britain had a reasonable fear of an invasion from the European mainland. There were attempts at independence elsewhere in the British Empire at the same time that the American Revolution was going on.
We owe our “victory” during the American Revolution to British tactical blunders, to the combined military strength of the French, Spanish, and the Dutch, as well as other nations that took our side under the cloak of neutrality, in addition to the leadership and efforts from the patriot side.
Here’s another history tidbit. A leader in Russia during that time got together with the Scandinavian leaders and managed to work out a treaty to demilitarize the oceans/seas adjacent to those countries. This made it more difficult for the British Navy to inspect ships leaving those countries. We’re talking ships, from these countries, that were providing support to the patriots.
Regarding the “Bush having a clue” point: I’d argue that no POTUS since FDR has really had one when it came to getting the US into a war. And I’m not really sure about either Wilson or FDR in World Wars I and II, respectively. Both of those seemed to be as much reaction/”making it up as I go” than a grand scheme.
Truman in Korea? Nope. Pure reaction – correctly, as it turns out.
JFK, Bay of Pigs and early Vietnam? Nope. Again, pure reaction and trying to figure it out on the fly. Both ended up blowing up in his/his successor’s face.
LBJ and Vietnam? Be serious. He had no clue Vietnam would be that bad, or he’d have never gone there. (I’ll give him props for the Dominican Republic, though – that did go pretty much according to plan.)
Nixon in Vietnam? Maybe. He did manage to get us extricated from that mess – which had been so screwed up by LBJ by 1969 that staying and finishing the job properly was no longer an option. Even there, I don’t think Nixon foresaw the aftermath.
Carter obviously royally Fornicated Fido during the hostage crisis, and pretty much everything else he touched foreign-policy wise other than the Camp David Accord. And I’m not positive about it.
Reagan in Central America, Lebanon, and the ME? Not really. Only Grenada went more or less according to plan under Reagan.
Bush41 – yes, and no. Panama was well-executed and achieved the desired outcome. The Gulf War went quite well. But he called things off too early in the Gulf, and by doing that ended up accomplishing little more than kicking that can of worms down the road for someone else to deal with – who ironically, turned out to be his son.
Clintoon’s failures in Bosnia and elsewhere need no explanation. Clueless, from day 1. And by treating terrorism as LE vice an existential threat, he IMO fostered both the creation of al Qaeda and 9/11.
Bush43? Not really. Afghanistan was forced on him, if handled well once it was forced. But I’ve always thought Iraq should have been deferred until we’d taken care of business in Afghanistan. We starved Afghanistan of resources for years to support Iraq, and that bit us in the ass. Had we concentrated there in 2002-2006, I think we’d have seen a very different outcome there. But we didn’t.
And as for the current Occupant, 1600 PA Ave . . . the terms “SOFA” and “Arab Spring” come to mind along with the current ISIS idiocy. ‘Nuff said.
Bottom line: Bush may have been unable to foresee the future when it came to war and its consequences, but he’s got plenty of company. I can think of precious few previous Presidents who managed to know what they intended to achieve with a war a priori, then actually do it. I’d argue that we haven’t really seen that since McKinley and the Spanish-American War except for minor efforts like the DR and Grenada. And even then, the Spanish-American War was followed by something called the Philippine Insurrection – so arguably even that one didn’t go totally according to plan.
I can’t argue with that, shame on me for expecting that our presidents get better at this shit as time progresses.
The problem, my friend, is that some problems . . . don’t seem to have good solutions. IMO their complexity is simply beyond human ability.
Determining a priori the outcome and long-term aftermath of a war is IMO one such problem.
Afghanistan was the reason that the USSR went bankrupt and out of business.
It’s the reason Gorbachev dissolved the Politburo. If the USSR had not spent all that money, blood, and effort in trying to do a land grab there, the Cold War might still be going on and what has happened since then might never have happened.
That means just that, “until we’re done”. I see this from a far Eastern philosophical standpoint. That statement can mean tomorrow, the next week, the next month, the next year, the next decade, the next century, etc.
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, George Bush made a series of speeches. The theme among those speeches is that this conflict was not going to be a short term duration one. It was to be a prolonged protracted one. As George Bush, and others, continue to make speeches about the war on terror in general, Afghanistan and Iraq in particular, a person following the speeches formed a picture of a war that was going to take decades.
American logistical and training support to Third World countries around the world, such as the Philippines, and many of the African countries fighting terrorists, is part of the greater war on terrorism. These different parts, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, were all part of the greater picture that is the war and terrorism.
George Bush accurately stated that this war was not just in the military, but also political, economic, informational, etc.
Anybody following the trend of the explanations as you progress towards entering Afghanistan in the first place, emphasized this as a prolonged protracted war with Afghanistan being the first battle, but not last.
There were supposed to be many others following it. I remember George Bush saying that within two days of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Historically, none of our leaders in the United States, or any of the leaders in the United Kingdom when we were still a British colony, were able to accurately predict how long war was going to last, or how long an occupation was going to take place.
Go back further in time and you’ll read about a war that took place for over a century.
As for how long we were really going to be there, how long are we going to have a military presence n in Cuba since we invaded it? How long are we going to have a military presence in Japan? Germany? These questions build on to what Hondo was saying.
I read an article that was written in 1946. The title? “America Loses the Peace in Europe.” I also recommend reading about the sabotaging efforts that were made in post-World War II Germany, during the occupation, against coalition efforts to reconstruct that country.
World War II, in the post World War II world, were not as clear-cut as what people expected.
Obama’s comments are indefensible and the rise of ISIS is a direct result of our withdrawal from Iraq, rather than our invasion a decade ago. That being said:
I’m not entirely convinced our invasion of Iraq was necessary or well-advised. Yes, he had chemical weapons and a willingness to use them, but I doubt he would have against the US or its troops because he was sufficiently afraid of what we would do if he did. At that time, we still had the backing, if not the acquiescence, of most of the rest of the world to unleash our formidable military at whatever targets we wanted; and Saddam knew that. I’d have rather had him afraid of us and the Iranians afraid of him.
However, once we went into Iraq, it should have been with the intent of total destruction of the government and the society, infrastructure, etc. – scorched earth, if you will – in the same vein as Sherman, Grant, Eisenhower and MacArthur. Then wheeled-left and headed to Syria. By that time, the other trouble-makers would have gotten the message.
I wasn’t there, many of you were, but that’s my view. It’s brutal, but would have cost us a lot less blood and treasure than the fools-errand of nation-building; and I doubt we’d have found ourselves in a worse position than we are today regarding that region.
Didn’t mean to hi-jack the thread, but it all comes down to this. The issue I have with GWB is that he had the military, money, moral high ground and the moment-in-time to fully implement the Bush Doctrine, deterring those who would seek to harm us for decades to come, and he squandered it.
I notice Lars Limpdick hasn’t graced us with his illustrious genius today. And I’m okay with that.
Yep. Last week was Spring Break. This week he has homework.
I will play Lars.
TOW and GDContractor: As I said before, I am no longer responding to you two. This doesn’t count as a response so don’t go there. And even if this counted as a response, I don’t respond to racists so it can’t be a response.
That was too good. I’m worried about you bro.
Good try, AirCav, but you still sounded too mature, made too much sense, and weren’t nearly enough of an asshole to convincingly pass as Lars.
Not to mention AirCav’s response was about 10 pages too short to feel like Lars “blah, blah, blah blahblahblah” Taylor.
lars is a sexist pig.
There, fixed it for you, GDC.
Great post, Jonn. I will also add: If we had left Saddam in power, and removed our troops from Saudi Arabia (where they were so provoking to bin Laden and his buddies)…Saddam’s usual MO would’ve been to recover his lost honor (and fortunes) by attacking one of his weak but wealthy neighbors. (Retaking Kuwait, overrunning Saudi Arabia too maybe.) If not immediately, then as soon as possible.
Our example in Vietnam would show him that “once America leaves, they don’t come back,” so he’d feel safe doing it…Gulf War I showed that none of his Middle East neighbors, not even Iran (the supposed “counterweight”) would act to stop him…and the Iran-Iraq war showed that he was a plunger, always ready to gamble, even on something that didn’t look safe.
If any military commander blamed failures within his command on his predecessor, he most likely would be rightly relieved of command.
Yet this whiney-ass commander of all commanders accepts no responsibility for any failure, even that which is clearly his, and the American media let him get away with it for one, and only one, reason: because he is black. Even Lars knows this is true although I’m sure he won’t admit it.
These liberal, American media apologists for this incompetent CinC are an even greater enemy to the American military and the nation than Islamic terrorism.
“Obama pointed out that his fight against ISIS had a 60 country coalition, which would “slowly push” the terrorist group out of Iraq.” Really? So, the plan was never to destroy or decimate ISIS as he stated numerous times. It is simply to “slowly push them out of Iraq”. Okay then, push them out and into where Obama? Syria? Jordan? Iran? Turkey? I think all of them would have a word or two to say about that. As always, everything that comes out of this clowns mind and mouth is more ludicrous than the last. I do not know who his real advisers are but they are the dumbest sons of bitches on the planet. In my own opinion, Obama listens to his Muslim advisers far more than anyone might think. I have always maintained Obama is a closet Muslim. He goes to great lengths to defend them at every turn and every occasion when someone tries to tell him, “hey ISIS are a bunch of murdering thugs that need killing first and talking to next”. I confirmed this in my mind when he through the DoD released our battle plan for Mosul. IMHO folks. YMMV
Yep, no doubt in my mind about it.
He is a mooslummer…
And I still maintain that raised index finger at the UN was a supposedly secret sign of solidarity with the watching Muslim leaders.
Let’s forget the fact that they are international. This is not about a nationality here, it is about a political ideology dressed up as a Religion. A subject he refuses to even remotely address, except to say anyone who does call the duck a duck is a racist that is.
The man is truly showing his colors the past few years, and sheep keep following along.
My opinion about this is that since he didn’t ‘need’ the office of president (per Axelrod’s own report), he doesn’t give a crap about the job and never really has. He has had a cavalier attitude toward it from the beginning, and his latest statement that mandatory voting would be ‘fun’ says exactly that – he just does not give a crap. He’s more interested in golf than he is in the job he gets paid to do. He has many times seemed bored silly by the whole thing. He’s made more faux pas than I can count, committed more soleicisms in public, and figuratively flipped the bird on a regular basis at 4he very people who voted him into office in the first place.
The kind of attack that took place on 9/11/01 takes long-term planning. Records released to news sources showed that those hijackers were here for several years before Bush, Jr., was elected. So how can any of that be blamed on anyone else except Clinton?
bodaprez’s statement (in news sources) that ISIS was junior varsity again shows that he never took the job seriously, that he just didn’t give a crap about anything except maybe getting applause and being on TV, where he could puff off some clever quips.
I’ve said all of that before and I will continue to say it: he just doesn’t give a crap, and whatever is wrong is all and always someone else’s fault. Period. Because he didn’t have anything to do with how it happened, EVEN IF IT HAD BEEN PLANNED LONG BEFORE BUSH EVEN RAN FOR OFFICE.
We have a few years to go before the disturbances begin to lighten up, probably not before 2022. There is the distinct possiblity that a real, hardass war in the Middle East can erupt, not this current brushfire, potshooting stuff. It can also creep up into Central Asia and Russia.
Anything can happen and will, but if it does actually crank up before that asshole leaves office, he will only prove to be the incompetent, spiteful, vindictive ass we all know he is. And we can blame it on him.
He’s not the press darling that you all seem to think he is. Not every news outlet is quite so enamored of him any more. The real world finally sank in with a few of them.
60 country coalition?
Name them.
And “statements of support/condemnation/etc” don’t count.
Only the countries putting steel on target
Some of those 60 don’t have steel to put on target, only some wood and spit apparently…
Stay classy POTUS.
QM1…President Really Needs A Clue, hasn’t and won’t learn this. His job is SUPPOSE to be, leading this nation, its people and its government as a team. I was always taught, there is no “I” in the TEAM. Well, Mr. President, sadly for America, there is no “U” in the TEAM either.
Hard to lead from the links and when you’re always facing backwards to blame the previous guy.
Veritas Omnia Vincit…Thank you +100.
Bush could have blamed Clinton for Al Queda and 9/11. He could have blamed his own father and Clinton for leaving Iraq in such a mess, that going back in became all but unavaoidable. He didn’t though. He took the task dropped into his lap and did what he thought to be best. He didn’t bitch and moan about the mistakes of others, with benefit of hindsight to give credibility to the criticism.
Iraq as it is now, ISIS, ISIL, or whatever the fucking hell you want to call it is his pile of shit to deal with. Blaming anyone else is not making the problem go away, it is just to try and deflect political fallout away from himself and his party.
You know Brent Scowcroft, who has a teensy weensy bit of experience in international affairs, broke his customary silence in 2002 to warn Bush not to attack Iraq. He knew then that a power vacuum is a lot worse than a dictator like Saddam, and his fears were proven correct. Just admit it, invading Iraq was the biggest strategic blunder in US history, and the repercussions will haunt us for generations. No point in dwelling on it, it’s simply a well proven fact at this point and we have to deal with it. To try and rectify this cluster, we should at least have an accurate view of its cause.
The principal didn’t want to expel the murderer from school, because he knew that the vacuum caused by him being gone would be worse and than the rapes and murders he had committed.
We don’t get to hand a hall pass to monsters because we are afraid of what weaker monsters might do afterward.
It is a mess right now, but in 2009 we weren’t having these arguments about Iraq. Things were quiet, there was no timeline on our withdrawal and we had made massive steps forward in security and stability.
worse than the*
I should proofread better.
Except we do hand hall passes to monsters all the time take a look at the part of Africa south of the middle east. We don’t spend a lot time stabilizing those monstrous regimes…it’s not like the US travels the world in search of evil and removes it and replaces it with a shining democracy.
We do what we believe promotes our national interest, sometimes that coincides with removing a monster and sometimes it doesn’t. The support of disgusting regimes like the Saudis or the Pakistanis is a clear example of doing what is in our best interests as opposed to what’s righteous.
We are a great nation, we treat our people better than many nations and we welcome those from other nations, mostly, into our borders with open arms and opportunity. Few nations, if any, have as many personal liberties written into their founding documents as we have.
I won’t dispute any of that, but that doesn’t mean your analogy works in this case. Iraq was a wise strategic move, but an unwise attempt at unification. It remains to be seen if the three tribes will ever unite in a single nation with a sense of singular nationality or devolve into three smaller nations with constant border wars like much of the rest of the continent.
We maintained a unified Iraq after 2003 because the alternative – dismemberment – was unworkable.
Turkey was not going to buy off on an independent Kurdistan, and neither was Iran (both have sizable Kurdish regions that have historically been restive). While we didn’t care what Iran thought, Turkey’s opinion mattered. It’s one of the few reasonably secular and pro-US nations in the Islamic world.
Perhaps more importantly: detaching the southern Shiite regions from Iraq was a virtual guarantee that that area would end up under Iranian domination – and likely under direct Iranian rule – pronto on our departure. That was also not a viable option.
Maintaining a unified Iraq may not have been a pleasant or easy alternative. But if you see another one that better suits US strategic interests please identify it. I’ll be damned if I can find one.
I do not see another alternative, but I also think it will take a steady stream of resources whether we like that or not to maintain an artificial construct such as Iraq where entropy is far more likely in the absence of a strong central authority.
Saddam kept entropy at bay with brutal repression. We’re not going to use that strategy so we need one that engages all three and creates that sense of nationalism required.
I remain uncertain that is possible, I understand we have few options at this time. But just because we have few options doesn’t mean the options we have will work. In my head I think no matter when we leave that nation will deconstruct itself because those three disparate units haven’t organically evolved into a homogenous state over the last 500 years there is consequently little evidence 50-100 years of occupation can change that without some sort of generational re-education which is something we are not often able to produce.
Originally posted by Joe:
You know Brent Scowcroft, who has a teensy weensy bit of experience in international affairs, broke his customary silence in 2002 to warn Bush not to attack Iraq. He knew then that a power vacuum is a lot worse than a dictator like Saddam, and his fears were proven correct. Just admit it, invading Iraq was the biggest strategic blunder in US history, and the repercussions will haunt us for generations. No point in dwelling on it, it’s simply a well proven fact at this point and we have to deal with it. To try and rectify this cluster, we should at least have an accurate view of its cause.
First, in the same article where he warns not to attack Iraq, he insinuated that attacking Iraq would lead to the Middle East being in mass conflagration during the invasion. That prediction did not happen. He argued that Saddam would throw all he had at the invasion, including mass chemical attacks. That didn’t happen either.
He made other predictions in that article that were consistent with predictions made by the progressive media. He wasn’t using policy experience, instead he was parroting what others were saying.
His conclusion required us to continue to engage in a failed policy. His idea of “no notice inspections” would’ve failed anyway. The Russians had spies among inspection team. They had an element of their special forces working with the Iraqi military to move weapons of mass destruction around… Based on communication with Russian spies among inspection team.
These “no notice inspections” would’ve continued a status quo that was not working.
Second, you’re wrong on the assumption that invading Iraq was a “blunder.” The cold hard reality is that the invasion of Iraq was strategic brilliance. People keep arguing about how Afghanistan served as “the graveyard of empires.” The latest example was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
With the Soviets focused on Afghanistan, the opportunity was there for a massive influx of insurgents from other parts of the Arab world into Afghanistan. Anybody following the news would been fully aware of how the terrain in Afghanistan negated many advantages that the Soviet war machine would’ve enjoyed on flat terrain.
Advance to the 21st century.
The United States invades Afghanistan toward the end of 2001. In 2002, the conditions solidify for the same thing happening to the United States military in Afghanistan as what happened with the Soviets. But, we opened up another front, a juicier front, a more urgent front, for the terrorists to flock in to fight.
We were able to leverage more of our military hardware advantage in Iraq than we did in Afghanistan. So now, the influx that was supposed to make Afghanistan far more bloody for us than what it has been, ended up flocking to terrain where we were able to bring most of our war toys to bear.
By the time the anti-Iraqi force realized that they were going to lose in the long run, just as they were losing in the short run, in Iraq, they turned her attention elsewhere. They shifted back to Afghanistan.
However, while they were busy focusing most of their efforts on Iraq, the coalition had time to stand up and train an Afghan army.
So, when the density of the influx shifted to Afghanistan, they shifted to an Afghanistan where they not only had to fight the coalition, they had to fight a force consisting of Afghan nationals. Yes, many of those nationals proved to be a headache, and even to be turncoats.
But, they have been a heavier headache against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Like their Iraqi counterparts, they were willing to go “Arab” on the enemy.
Third, I’ve been arguing this point, as well as the one I’ve been arguing elsewhere on this thread, for over a decade. I have yet to see those who agree with you here advance a logical, factual, “in history” context proof of their assumption.
I’m not going to admit to something that is not the case. I most certainly will not admit to something that’s not based on fact. You people have simply failed, over and over again, to prove that going into Iraq was something other than a smart move.
Had the current team in the White House been willing to capitalize, politically and economically, on the spinoffs of our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the positive impacts of those actions on our history would’ve been more obvious.
I’ve been arguing for over a decade that our invasion of Iraq was a catalyst that was going to set up a series of chain reactions that would lead to a ripple effect throughout the Middle East. One of these events eventually happened, in the form of the Arab Spring.
It was on the White House to facilitate the movement of each country that had Arab Spring in the right direction.
Our failure to go into Iraq like we did in 2003 would’ve wanted us for generations. Under asymmetrical warfare, allowing a dictator like Saddam to play games with the UN with regards to WMD would’ve been equivalent to standing in a room full of easily flammable liquids up to your waist with a man playing with matches.
We HAD to invade Iraq as a logical next step in the war and terror. Anybody that holds an accurate view of the source of this entity threat against us would see what I’m arguing here.
I remember hearing people, back in the ’80s, arguing something similar against Ronald Reagan’s policies relative to the Soviet Union. One of their biggest complaints against Ronald Reagan was his push for SDI, and how that was going to bankrupt the United States, and how that would work with his other policies to result in mass conflagration throughout the world. Another was their complaint about his sabotaging the Soviet effort in Afghanistan.
The policies that they criticized happened to be the policies that were going to facilitate the ultimate disintegration of the Soviet Union. Many of the same things said against George Bush were also said against Ronald Reagan.
Little did those Reagan detractors back in the 1980s realize the positive long-term effects that Ronald Reagan’s policies were going to have. History will see George Bush in the same light.
I love reading these clinical dissections on the fine points of policy. So how many hundreds of thousands dead, how many countries overthrown or destabilized, how many new terrorists created, how many nuclear weapons not found would it take for you guys to admit it was a mistake? Kinda the same refrain as Viet Nam – we almost won, we could have won, if only……
“So how many hundreds of thousands dead, how many countries overthrown or destabilized, how many new terrorists created, how many nuclear weapons not found would it take for you guys to admit it was a mistake?”–Joe
Okay, I admit it. Obama’s Arab Spring was a mistake. His announced withdrawal of our troops and the timetable for that withdrawal was a mistake. His trading five terrorists for one deserter was a mistake. His wanting a nuclear-capable Iran was (and is) a mistake. His destabilization efforts in the ME and No Afr were (and are) a mistake. His alienating Israel and favoring the formation of an independent Palestinian state were (and are) a mistake. His failure to respond timely and appropriately to the now-gargantuan ISIS threat was a mistake. I admit it. And it wasn’t hard for me to do so, Joe. Any other requests?
Joe says: I love reading these clinical dissections on the fine points of policy.
What fine points of policy? The man that you referenced provided poor advice, which required us to do nothing but another form of the status quo in the face of an asymmetrical/unrestricted warfare threat to our existence in the long term.
Simply put, the man that you referenced was on the wrong side of the argument, and he failed to factor in real history and current events, to include the human nature undertow that helped drive human events throughout history.
Joe says: So how many hundreds of thousands dead,
First, if you’re referencing the “hundreds of thousands” dead that liberals have been advancing in their anti-Iraq War argument, that number is wrong. It’s based on a survey that wasn’t properly done, a survey that required a lot of guesswork and poor categorizing in terms of cause of deaths.
Official counts put that number at far less than what that “survey” put out. I read the methodology done with that survey… it would’ve gotten thrown out in a basic statistics and sampling class held at a university… with the Students told to redo their planned methodology. Had they submitted a statistics and sampling based research paper in, and it had that same or similar methodology, the students would’ve gotten an F for the project.
People who were clearly against the Iraq War generated that report.
Second, when we’re facing a long term mortal threat to our civilization, we have to be willing to “spill as much blood” as necessary to defeat the threat. Just ask the Romans, who raised armies consisting of 80,000 or more troops after losing approximately as many troops in a single battle during some of the wars that threatened their existence.
Just ask the generation that fought during World War II to see what the country was willing to do in terms of sacrifice and lives lost to eliminate a threat.
Third, most of the civilian deaths in Iraq resulted from the acts of the Anti-Iraqi Force, who could’ve easily decided to not fight. They could’ve easily decided to work in the best interest of the Iraqi people, their tribe, their communities, etc.
But, that’s not going to stop us from doing what we have to do to eliminate a mortal threat against the United States. Saddam’s Iraq, and the anti-Iraqi force perpetrated violence in the aftermath, were very much a part of this long term asymmetrical threat against the United States and the rest of the world.
The entity that threatens us sees our Constitution as inconsistent with what they think God wants in a government.
I’m sorry, but choosing to avoid the blood, sweat, and other sacrifices needed to eliminate this asymmetrical/unrestricted warfare threat to us is equivalent to choosing to living on our knees in mass rather than dying on our feet while standing and fighting against this threat.
Joe says: how many countries overthrown or destabilized,
Afghanistan and Iraq’s radical governments being overthrown made, and still, makes perfect sense. As these countries continue to develop, it’ll be harder for the Iranian leadership to keep the status quo within Iraq. When that day comes, a lot of the problems involving support for terrorists would be reduced.
Having 2 countries, in different stages of democracy, flanking Iran is far more effective in the long run than trying to topple that government militarily. This is one of many reasons to why the Iraq war was not a mistake.
Now, the Arab Spring happened, as I predicted it’d happen since I started debating about this issue over a decade ago. The current White House administration didn’t even half ass the efforts needed from our end to ensure the most positive outcome to the Arab Spring.
Like what Bush mentioned in September 20, 2001, this was going to require political, economic, financial, etc., efforts to change… efforts that should’ve been more effectively applied to the countries impacted by the Arab Spring. That required maximum political and economic engagement to ensure that these countries transitioned to fledgling democracies… and survive the vulnerabilities that normally affect fledgling democracies.
After what happened in September 2001, gone were the days when we had to have conditions that facilitated the likes of Al-Qaeda. The current administration was handed something that was bound to succeed… of only Washington DC remained engaged the way it was supposed to remain engaged… and not do things that’ll frustrate that success handed over to him by the Pentagon.
Joe says: how many new terrorists created,
I’m sorry, but our actions in the Middle East don’t create more terrorists any more than our smoking a beehive “creates” more bees. The mere fact that the radical elements are out there trying to undo what we’ve accomplished shows that they see the events that we set off as a threat to them… and their strategic global objectives of converting the United States and the rest of the world into a series of Islamic Caliphates/Emirates.
We’ve been facing this “terrorist” threat since the beginning of the Dark Ages. When I say, “we,” I’m talking about western civilization.
Our failure to respond to these terrorists as a military threat in the 1990s, as opposed to as an LE issue, contributed to the emboldening of Al-Qaeda to kill thousands of Americans on American soil. That was supposed to be the first of many like salvos on US territory.
Even if we didn’t take action in the Middle East, these terrorists would’ve seen the 9/11 attacks, or follow on attacks, as a rally cry to join the cause to defeat the west in order to establish global radical Islamic Law.
If we didn’t go into Iraq, the terrorists would’ve simply added to their ranks using Afghanistan as a rally cry. If we didn’t enter into either country, and if we continued the status quo, the terrorists would’ve interpreted that as a weakness, and that would’ve proven to be a boon to terrorist recruiting.
Joe says: how many nuclear weapons not found
First, if you’re talking about WMD, Bush’s argument involved the full spectrum of WMD. That is, nuclear, chemical, and biological agents. Sarin, Mustard, and Blistard agents were used as part of IED attacks against the coalition post invasion.
They were used in IED attacks when I was deployed to Iraq.
Sarin, Mustard, and Blistard agents are chemical agence; HENCE, they’re WMD. Bush was right, those that claimed that there were “no” WMD were dead wrong. Instead of admitting that they were wrong, they pull the, “But it was from before 1991” canard.
I’m sorry, but a “NO” WMD argument means that, a “NO” WMD argument. To even try to entertain the, “but it was from before the Gulf War” canard is to go back on one’s own argument.
Troops have been digging up evidence of said WMD throughout the Iraq War. Again, BUSH was right, those that claimed that there were “no” WMD were dead wrong.
Also, your side of the argument likes to zero in on the “nuclear weapons” issue as if that was “all” he talked about. That tells me that you guys are the ones that refuse to admit that you’re wrong.
Second, if you paid attention to Bush’s speech, WMD was NOT the ONLY reason he gave for invading Iraq. He also advanced a theme that kept showing up in his War on Terror related speeches throughout his presidency… the need for true freedom in a region.
Again, if our adversaries have spies with the inspection teams speaking to special forces operators from our same adversary near these weapons, those nuclear weapons, or other kinds of weapons for that matter, wouldn’t be found regardless of whether we enter a country or not.
Joe says: would it take for you guys to admit it was a mistake?
Again, I’ve been arguing these same/similar points for over a decade. I’m doing so because both firsthand experience, and extensive research on the topic, prove that I, and others who have argued on the same side of the argument as me, are right.
Your side of the argument has consistently failed to prove, with fact based logic, that the Iraq War was a “mistake,” quotation marks used strongly. The others that I’ve debated with argued the same way you have.
You guys expect us to abandon the facts in favor of an emotion based argument that you guys embrace.
Expecting us to “admit” that it was a “mistake” is equivalent to expecting us to “admit” that 1 + 1 is “11” as opposed to “2.”
Joe says: Kinda the same refrain as Viet Nam — we almost won, we could have won, if only……
Actually, we won every major battle in Vietnam, including the Tet Offensive. We lost that war politically in the Democrat controlled Congress, and on the streets of America. Had the American people maintained the will to fight, and had the Democrat Congress continued to fund the South Vietnamese government with the needed level of funding, we’d still have 2 Vietnams today, with the southern part being democratic.
The military won on the ground, we wouldn’t have been able to get North Vietnam to the negotiating table if the military didn’t win on the ground. What was required was political will to preserve the victory, something that progressives/liberals/democrats didn’t have.
Think about it… when North Vietnam got wind that the Democrat Congress was going to defund the Vietnam War in the near future, they decided to wait it out and not negotiate at all. Richard Nixon ordered an operation that required bombing the crap out of them. We ratcheted up the military ass kicking, which forced the North Vietnamese back to the bargaining table.
The United States pulled combat units out of Vietnam in 1973. The South Vietnamese took over their own defense, and would’ve held on had they had the funding and support that they needed from Washington D.C.
The Democrats had other ideas, like pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory. South Vietnam later fell. That wasn’t the result of the US military being “pushed out,” because they had already pulled out after setting the conditions on the ground for pulling out.
The Democrats/liberals tried the same stunt last decade, with Iraq. Thank God they didn’t get their way. Unfortunately, through White House incompetency under the current administration, Iraq ended up seeing the increased chances of the same fate.
Don’t blame the negative consequences of Democrat incompetence on those that made the right decisions, or on those that set the conditions up for success. Place the blame where it squarely belongs.
First, in the same article where he warns not to attack Iraq, he claimed that attacking Iraq would lead to the Middle East being in mass conflagration. That prediction did not happen. He argued that Saddam would throw all he had at the invasion, including mass chemical attacks. That didn’t happen either.
He made other predictions in that article that were consistent with predictions made by the progressive media. He wasn’t using policy experience, instead he was parroting what others were saying.
His conclusion required us to continue to engage in a failed policy. His idea of “no notice inspections” would’ve failed anyway. The Russians had spies among inspection team. They had an element of their special forces working with the Iraqi military to move weapons of mass destruction around… Based on communication with Russian spies among inspection team.
These “no notice inspections” would’ve continued a status quo that was not working.
Second, you’re wrong on the assumption that invading Iraq was a “blunder.” The cold hard reality is that the invasion of Iraq was strategic brilliance. People keep arguing about how Afghanistan served as “the graveyard of empires.” The latest example was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
With the Soviets focused on Afghanistan, the opportunity was there for a massive influx of insurgents from other parts of the Arab world into Afghanistan. Anybody following the news would been fully aware of how the terrain in Afghanistan negated many advantages that the Soviet war machine would’ve enjoyed on flat terrain.
Advance to the 21st century.
The United States invades Afghanistan toward the end of 2001. In 2002, the conditions solidify for the same thing happening to the United States military in Afghanistan as what happened with the Soviets. But, we opened up another front, a juicier front, a more urgent front, for the terrorists to flock in to fight.
We were able to leverage more of our military hardware advantage in Iraq than we did in Afghanistan. So now, the influx that was supposed to make Afghanistan far more bloody for us than what it has been, ended up flocking to terrain where we were able to bring most of our war toys to bear.
By the time the anti-Iraqi force realized that they were going to lose in the long run, just as they were losing in the short run, in Iraq, they turned her attention elsewhere. They shifted back to Afghanistan.
However, while they were busy focusing most of their efforts on Iraq, the coalition had time to stand up and train an Afghan army.
So, when the density of the influx shifted to Afghanistan, they shifted to an Afghanistan where they not only had to fight the coalition, they had to fight a force consisting of Afghan nationals. Yes, many of those nationals proved to be a headache, and even to be turncoats.
But, they have been a heavier headache against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Like their Iraqi counterparts, they were willing to go “Arab” on the enemy.
Third, I’ve been arguing this point, as well as the one I’ve been arguing elsewhere on this thread, for over a decade. I have yet to see those who agree with you here advance a logical, factual, “in history” context proof of their assumption.
I’m not going to admit to something that is not the case. I most certainly will not admit to something that’s not based on fact. You people have simply failed, over and over again, to prove that going into Iraq was something other than a smart move.
Had the current team in the White House been willing to capitalize, politically and economically, on the spinoffs of our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the positive impacts of those actions on our history would’ve been more obvious.
I’ve been arguing for over a decade that our invasion of Iraq was a catalyst that was going to set up a series of chain reactions that would lead to a ripple effect throughout the Middle East. One of these events eventually happened, in the form of the Arab Spring.
It was on the White House to facilitate the movement of each country that had Arab Spring in the right direction.
Our failure to go into Iraq like we did in 2003 would’ve wanted us for generations. Under asymmetrical warfare, allowing a dictator like Saddam to play games with the UN with regards to WMD would’ve been equivalent to standing in a room full of easily flammable liquids up to your waist with a man playing with matches.
We HAD to invade Iraq as a logical next step in the war and terror. Anybody that holds an accurate view of the source of this entity threat against us would see what I’m arguing here.
I remember hearing people, back in the ’80s, arguing something similar against Ronald Reagan’s policies relative to the Soviet Union. One of their biggest complaints against Ronald Reagan was his push for SDI, and how that was going to bankrupt the United States, and how that would work with his other policies to result in mass conflagration throughout the world. Another was their complaint about his sabotaging the Soviet effort in Afghanistan.
The policies that they criticized happened to be the policies that were going to facilitate the ultimate disintegration of the Soviet Union. Many of the same things said against George Bush were also said against Ronald Reagan.
Little did those Reagan detractors back in the 1980s realize the positive long-term effects that Ronald Reagan’s policies were going to have. History will see George Bush in the same light.
To me, Bush’s biggest failure was to not fight back against the forces of the left that were hell bent on trashing our military simply because Bush was in charge of them.
Anybody remember Hairyboy Reid ? “This war is lost” and all the crap on the talking heads TV shows that trashed every single thing that we did in Iraq and wherever we fought.
Incredibly the entire administration stood there and took whatever was said about their accomplishments and never fought back one iota…
That in itself helped to destroy the morale of the military and left us with the mess we have now.
It was because they didn’t fight back that ofuckwad was elected, the same attitude that McCain carried through to his run for the POTUS…
This is all a bunch of lies and deceptions by a man that knows that history will not treat him well and is hell bent on destroying as much of this country as he possibly can…
And that, is the truth from my chair here in Texas…
A Petraeus interview on Iraq, his thoughts on how, why, and the possible way forward:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/03/20/petraeus-the-islamic-state-isnt-our-biggest-problem-in-iraq/?hpid=z1
Note: Nothing about a lack of jobs for Daesh or blaming Bush. How do such idiots get and stay in office? (rhetorical question)