How OBAMA abandoned Iraq

[JustRalph]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...l_of_iraq.html

I'm not a fan of Slate......but this is a good piece

[Greyfox]

The problem was both George W. Bush and Barack Obama failed to see what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was all about.
Sadam Hussein was a Sunni and he patronized those Muslims.
al-Maliki is Shiite. He tipped the scales the other way and made Sunnis and Kurds second class citizens in Iraq, seldom giving them any meaningful posts in Government.
This naturally bred resentment between the various factions.
In time Obama made a lame duck attempt to sign a Status of Forces Agreement with al-Maliki to have American troops stay longer.
But Obama's heart wasn't in it and he hastily decided against the troops staying.
With the power void that was left, ISIS recruited Sunnis and started the vicious campaign that is still raging today.
Fortunately, al-Maliki could not hang on to power and a less biased leader is in place today. But the Sunnis don't have much trust in him yet.

I wouldn't blame Obama alone here. George W. Bush also had his hand in inspiring the troubles that are going on here.
Bush believed that Democracy would spread like wild fire.
Unfortunately, he was quite ignorant about the tribal splits in Middle-East society.
Bush also didn't understand how Democracy is a huge threat to Muslim cultures, in that it would mean less oppression of women.

[Robert Goren]

The problem started when we invaded Iraq. That may be worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States. Since then, both Bush and Obama have been faced with a series of no-win decisions. At least Obama has managed not to involve troops on the ground. If he or the next president were to do so, it would solve nothing and only result in a more deaths and injures to American soldiers. We can not fix that place.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

The problem started when we invaded Iraq. That may be worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States. Since then, both Bush and Obama have been faced with a series of no-win decisions. At least Obama has managed not to involve troops on the ground. If he or the next president were to do so, it would solve nothing and only result in a more deaths and injures to American soldiers. We can not fix that place.

The problem started when we invaded Iraq. That may be worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States

Once again myopic wingnuts demonstrate their unmatched ability to "overlook" obvious and indisputable facts.And whats really scary is their unshakable belief in the validity of "their" keyhole worldview.The veracity of this charge is underscored by the asinine and ill-advised Iraq invasion itself.

[Hank]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

The problem was both George W. Bush and Barack Obama failed to see what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was all about.
Sadam Hussein was a Sunni and he patronized those Muslims.
al-Maliki is Shiite. He tipped the scales the other way and made Sunnis and Kurds second class citizens in Iraq, seldom giving them any meaningful posts in Government.
This naturally bred resentment between the various factions.
In time Obama made a lame duck attempt to sign a Status of Forces Agreement with al-Maliki to have American troops stay longer.
But Obama's heart wasn't in it and he hastily decided against the troops staying.
With the power void that was left, ISIS recruited Sunnis and started the vicious campaign that is still raging today.
Fortunately, al-Maliki could not hang on to power and a less biased leader is in place today. But the Sunnis don't have much trust in him yet.

I wouldn't blame Obama alone here. George W. Bush also had his hand in inspiring the troubles that are going on here.
Bush believed that Democracy would spread like wild fire.
Unfortunately, he was quite ignorant about the tribal splits in Middle-East society.
Bush also didn't understand how Democracy is a huge threat to Muslim cultures, in that it would mean less oppression of women.

Bush believed that Democracy would spread like wild fire.

Fox do you "actually believe", that Bush "actually believed" that the Saudi monarchy would embrace "democracy" as a result of the Iraq invasion?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Hank

Fox do you "actually believe", that Bush "actually believed" that the Saudi monarchy would embrace "democracy" as a result of the Iraq invasion?

No. There was never any intention to spread democracy to Arabia.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm starting to think maybe the collision course was inevitable and the tea-leave readers just figured we need some real practice before shit got serious.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

No. There was never any intention to spread democracy to Arabia.

You should go back and check some the rhetoric coming out the mouths of the neo cons during the early days of the Iraqi war. Whether or not anybody in the Bush administration actually said it public would probably require a lot of research, but there is plenty of statements by Iraqi war supporters that indicated that at least some neo cons thought that would be case. There seemed to be another faulty view floating around at the time. A democratically elected government anywhere would be by its nature pro American. The idea that Middle Easterners were actually pro American and that only the governments were anti American was a commonly held belief in the early 2000s. Unfortunately there are a few holdouts that continue to hang on to those ideas just as there is some Americans (generally liberals) who believe that Iraqi war caused the Islamic world to turn against America. Both of these camps were/are just plain naïve. As are the Americans who believe that Iranian people are actually pro Western and their government is out of touch with their people. Wishful thinking by some Americans when dealing with middle east has been one of our great downfalls.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

You should go back and check some the rhetoric coming out the mouths of the neo cons during the early days of the Iraqi war. Whether or not anybody in the Bush administration actually said it public would probably require a lot of research, but there is plenty of statements by Iraqi war supporters that indicated that at least some neo cons thought that would be case. There seemed to be another faulty view floating around at the time. A democratically elected government anywhere would be by its nature pro American.

Bush and the neocons thought that they could turn Iraq into a democracy if they got rid of Saddam. There is no evidence of any thought of bringing democracy to Saudi Arabia. The Bush family had close ties to the Saudi royals dating back to the first president Bush.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

As are the Americans who believe that Iranian people are actually pro Western and their government is out of touch with their people. Wishful thinking by some Americans when dealing with middle east has been one of our great downfalls.

I've seen enough Iranians in the street shouting in crowds "Death to America."

But there is also a large faction there who probably silently are against theocracy.
Here's two pictures to make you think that faction might be quite large.

Iran 1970


https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/dow...ppid=yahoomail


Iran 2012

https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/dow...ppid=yahoomail

[Marshall Bennett]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

The problem started when we invaded Iraq. That may be worst foreign policy decision in the history of the United States. Since then, both Bush and Obama have been faced with a series of no-win decisions. At least Obama has managed not to involve troops on the ground. If he or the next president were to do so, it would solve nothing and only result in a more deaths and injures to American soldiers. We can not fix that place.

I've addressed this quote at least a half dozen times here. I'm not wasting another minute of my time with it because none of you liberals get it, or you do and won't budge.

[Marshall Bennett]

Bush had troops in Iraq when he left office. Iraq had basically stabilized with little if any fighting. Obama comes along and removes our presence and now it's a unsettled shit-hole. Enter ISIS.
Case closed.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Marshall Bennett

Bush had troops in Iraq when he left office. Iraq had basically stabilized with little if any fighting. Obama comes along and removes our presence and now it's a unsettled shit-hole. Enter ISIS.
Case closed.

You left out the real mistake. Announcing that under no circumstances would we stay. Even giving dates for withdrawal. If they would have followed the Justralph doctrine we would have one hell of a nice base in the middle of Iraq. ISIS would be less than the JV team and the country would still be stable. The oil would be safe, stable etc.

No, can't be an imperialist nation.....that would be anti left.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

You left out the real mistake. Announcing that under no circumstances would we stay. Even giving dates for withdrawal. If they would have followed the Justralph doctrine we would have one hell of a nice base in the middle of Iraq. ISIS would be less than the JV team and the country would still be stable. The oil would be safe, stable etc.

No, can't be an imperialist nation.....that would be anti left.

You left out the part about our soldiers coming home dead or injured for life. Iraq was never a friendly place for our soldiers even when we were paying millions of dollars to the Sunni leaders during and right after the surge.
As it turned out we don't need their oil after all. Technology has made the US independent of middle eastern oil or will shortly depend on who you talk to. Who'd thought that would happen under Obama? Not even an old lefty like me.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Marshall Bennett

Bush had troops in Iraq when he left office. Iraq had basically stabilized with little if any fighting. Obama comes along and removes our presence and now it's a unsettled shit-hole. Enter ISIS.
Case closed.

Remind us of GWB's Iraq troop drawdown plans when he exited office? Ok, how did Obama's plan/actions differ so radically?