Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ruthless butchers are ok in the Mideast they are functional to their system of government and the truth is the people like that in a leader
As sad as that statement is - its true. It just works for them. It's a whole different world over there. Libya and Syria will likely never recover - not in our lifetime (IMO). Egypt is lucky its in the shape that it is... could have been another Syria.
Not sure you would agree with me on this... but your post brought a thought to my mind.
its ironic that we were likely too restrictive on our rules of engagement on the battlefield and at the same time, we failed miserably in dealing with those we took prisoner on those same battlefields.
We made a lot of mistakes in tactics, Ferd. And when I say "we" I'm not speaking generally. I'm an Iraq war veteran. I saw some of this firsthand and followed what I did not witness for myself very closely in the news. Many generals have since come to the same conclusions and shared their insights on what they would have done differently. Hindsight is 20/20. We were a lot better at fighting in Iraq in 2010 then we were in 2003. That's just the nature of war. You learn as you go.
One of the major mistakes that was made was the de-Baathification of the armed forces. We should have just taken over their Army, kept much of the same leadership and agreed to continue paying salaries for those who agreed to the rules of the new regime (ours). Instead, we sent out-of-work, professional soldiers back to their villages with nothing to do for money except join the burgeoning insurgency. Many of them were secular and didn't give a damn about Islamic extremism. They just needed to feed their families. The guys who eventually ended up putting their skills to good use and paying their salaries were the Islamists. Oops.
We also targeted the wrong people when we went after their military leadership. We focused on the top guys -- which makes sense if you're an American. If you want to break the back of the American armed forces, a great place to start would be to kill guys like Odienero, Petraeus, Dempsey, etc. What we learned about the Iraqi Army though is that these top positions were held by politically connected, not necessarily competent, people. The colonels and majors were actually the real military experts. That famous deck of cards had the wrong faces on it.
We also made some real mistakes in how we housed military prisoners. We would pick up regular people who were not necessarily a threat and put them in a prison with hardcore extremists who posed a grave threat to us. They were allowed to mix and talk. You remember that HBO prison show OZ? It had a nerdy lawyer character who was not a hardened criminal. He was a drunk who was locked up for vehicular manslaughter after he accidentally ran over a child. In season one, he was a regular guy .. still a citizen .. but by season five, he was holding his own with the best of them .. gang bangers, skinheads, you name it. A lot of that happened in Iraq. We picked up a huge number of people for minor offenses or just suspicion and inadvertently introduced them to charismatic Islamists who would later form ISIS.
We also made a really bad miscalculation on Maliki. If he didn't treat the Sunnis so poorly after we left, ISIS may not have grown so popular.
I understand what you are saying about ISIS' recent successes. If we did not leave, it is doubtful they would have any territory in Iraq. They probably would have a lot of territory in Syria, unless we were willing to commit even more troops and invade there as well. After one decade of occupation, we were nowhere near neutralizing the threat. It would have taken another two decades at least and even then who knows. The American people no longer had the will to do that. That's why Bush, not Obama, signed a SOFA in 2008 that would lead to a full withdrawal in a three-year time frame.
I don't know if it is intellectual dishonesty. I think it is more denial. It's literally a lack of capacity to comprehend, because comprehension would bring forth a conclusion that is too horrible to face, namely that ISIS is and will be a big part of the Obama legacy.
If John McCain, or even Joe Biden (remember that Biden at one time sought the 2008 nomination) had won in 2008, I believe that they would not have ceded large areas of Iraq to ISIS as Obama has.
Wu, once again, you're way off. ISIS will not be remembered by anyone except a few way out there ideologues as part of Obama's legacy. Bush broke it, Bush occupied it, Bush signed an agreement to leave it. What we are witnessing today was predicted by many advisers back in 2002 who told Bush to stay out and just pursue a policy of containment against Sadaam. There is nothing wrong with a policy of containment. It worked like a charm from 1945 - 1989. It's too bad Bush didn't have his father's prudence. I still praise HW today because he wisely chose to not push into Baghdad during the first go round.
the thing that Obama has that the others don't have is TIME.
there is plenty of time for history to show he was on its wrong side. plenty....
HOWEVER I am very willing to say, I cannot be unbiased about Obama. so take what I say about him with a grain of salt. all these threads that talk about judging a president, I always say it takes 20 years before you can objectively sort out what they did and didn't do.
Of course but LBJ's criticism as was Nixon's were rather instantaneous and never really changed.
Bush signed it, and I can agree that the agreement was a mistake. Pres. Obama executed it, however, in 2011. Are you able to admit that as a mistake? Not long after the 2011 withdrawal there were calls from the Iraqi foreign minister and others for a return of US troops. Obama ignored them. We'll never know, but I suspect that a Pres. McCain or Biden would not have ignored them.
BTW can you make a post without the annoying & condescending insults?
Bush signed the SOFA in 2008 because Iraq wanted us out, period. The only way Obama would have been able to stay would have been to do so against the wishes of the elected regime we instated. We would have had to roll our tanks into the palaces and parliament again and told the elected officials that we were displeased with their decisions and were going to start from square one with new puppets. That would have been madness. We would have had to fight the Shiites and the Sunnis. No thanks.
What do you allege here?? that we should have stayed in Iraq indefinitely? isn't it bad enough we were there as long as we were (and AT ALL) and the trillions of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ we spent, for WHAT???
First of all, the cost from 2003 to 2011 was $806 billion, not 'trillions.' It's a lot of money, but still only about 3% of the federal budget while it lasted. I think the operation should have been self-funded via Iraqi oil money, which was the original plan. I still remember vividly watching Paul Wolfowitz say so on Meet the Press.
If we could go back in time and reverse the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, I would do that, but we can't. Once we went in, Powell's 'pottery barn rule' was in effect: you broke it, you own it. If it were my call, I would have stayed for 25 years, again, most or all self-funded by oil. Iraq is somewhere in the top 5 in the world in oil reserves (some of which is now in the hands of ISIS).
If we could not induce a stable Iraq after about 25 years, then leave, but I believe we could have succeeded. To me it was absurd on its face to think that we could transform a place that had known only dictatorship into a stable democracy in less than 10 years.
First of all, the cost from 2003 to 2011 was $806 billion, not 'trillions.' It's a lot of money, but still only about 3% of the federal budget while it lasted. I think the operation should have been self-funded via Iraqi oil money, which was the original plan. I still remember vividly watching Paul Wolfowitz say so on Meet the Press.
If we could go back in time and reverse the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, I would do that, but we can't. Once we went in, Powell's 'pottery barn rule' was in effect: you broke it, you own it. If it were my call, I would have stayed for 25 years, again, most or all self-funded by oil. Iraq is somewhere in the top 5 in the world in oil reserves (some of which is now in the hands of ISIS).
If we could not induce a stable Iraq after about 25 years, then leave, but I believe we could have succeeded. To me it was absurd on its face to think that we could transform a place that had known only dictatorship into a stable democracy in less than 10 years.
Agreed. As someone who spent approximately every other year in the middle east or central Asia from 2003 until 2013, I don't know if I had another 15 years in me. You've come up with a plan to save the treasure, but what about the blood? Or just the lost time away from home and family? Would you be willing to have seen the return of the draft to spread the burden of occupation more evenly throughout the country? I wouldn't have wanted to see that. I think we should have never gone in in the first place. Bush was an idiot for doing so. He was told not to by a lot of smart people. He didn't listen. A decade later, we were sitting on a bad investment and had two choices ... keep doubling down or quit throwing good money after bad.
Now we're in 2015. What should we do? How about pursue a policy of containment? That's effectively what Obama is doing .. and not because he is a genius or anything. It's the only really smart thing to do. Anyone else in his position would do the same .. and whoever is in his seat in 2016 will do the same.
Bush signed the SOFA in 2008 because Iraq wanted us out, period. The only way Obama would have been able to stay would have been to do so against the wishes of the elected regime we instated. We would have had to roll our tanks into the palaces and parliament again and told the elected officials that we were displeased with their decisions and were going to start from square one with new puppets. That would have been madness. We would have had to fight the Shiites and the Sunnis. No thanks.
There were some in Iraq who wanted US troops back soon after we left:
As an immigrant to US, in my opinion Bush was a reckless cowboy but loved America. Obama is smarter but holds US in contempt.
Worst of all, there can be no criticism of Obama because he is black and it would be racist.
I am brown myself, and if we can't criticize a fail President like Obama because of his skin, I hope there is never a non-white one in the future, so everyone is free to express their opinion without being labeled.
What evidence would you cite to show that Obama has been smarter and less reckless than Bush? Obama is more devious. Is that what you meant?
Are they the same.... 6 of one, half a dozen of another?
or, are they different, in your opinion?
Scape goat vs reality.
In the mind of a liberal, Obama is responsible for nothing, and Bush is responsible for every problem in society. It is the convenient refuge of the idiots in society who need scapegoats and icons upon which to direct thier hate.
In the mind of a conservative, Obama and Bush are both idiots who were fiscally irresponsible, failed to enforce immigration, failed to reign in the financial sector, and failed to enforce/enact fair trade agreements for the US.
A conservative recgnizes both as poor presidents, as most conservatives are logical and can evaluate performance, regardless of party.
A liberal is blinded by partisanship and defends incompetence (Obama) out of party loyalty and only attacks those on the other side of the aisle (Bush).
They both suck
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
isn't it bad enough we were there as long as we were (and AT ALL) and the trillions of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ we spent, for WHAT???
