Skip to comments.Iraq is now lost, and it's Obama's fault
Posted on 11/05/2011 7:29:03 PM PDT by boatbums
Barack Obama was a principled opponent of the Iraq War from its beginning. But when he became president in January 2009, he was handed a war that was won. The surge had succeeded. Al-Qaida in Iraq had been routed, driven to humiliating defeat by an Anbar Awakening of Sunnis fighting side-by-side with the infidel Americans. Even more remarkably, the Shiite militias had been taken down, with American backing, by the forces of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They crushed the Sadr militias from Basra to Sadr City.
Al-Qaida decimated. A Shiite prime minister taking a decisively nationalist line. Iraqi Sunnis ready to integrate into a new national government. U.S. casualties at their lowest ebb in the entire war. Elections approaching. Obama was left with but a single task: Negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to reinforce these gains and create a strategic partnership with the Arab world's only democracy.
He blew it. Negotiations, such as they were, collapsed last month. There is no agreement, no partnership. As of Dec. 31, the American military presence in Iraq will end.
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/11/05/2748329/iraq-is-now-lost-and-its-obamas.html#ixzz1ct71BT8w
Cut -N- Run
And George W. Bush will remain politely silent.
What a disgusting POS this man is.
I could just cry at this turn of events. After all that...Once again the Libs Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory...VN Redux!
obama lied, the free world died.
Is Syria next¿
The traitor Rats deliberately lost Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran,...... the list goes on and Americans are so stupid they can’t see consistency.
Bush was the one who weakly mused that if "a sovereign Iraq" wanted us to leave we would have to leave. Can you imagine Truman saying that about postwar Japan?
Oh, don’t place all the blame on 0bama.
Iraq has pretty much been lost since the Parthians were defeated.
Obama just made sure that they won’t have a chance to thrive like they did two thousand years ago.
Bush hardly defended himself when in office so why say much now?
It’s all “New World Order” as Bush 41 said many times.
Iraq was destined to be lost the moment we left, unless you want to stay there forever, there is nothing we can do about it.
But I bet Krauthammer would still vote for him.
Obama was left with but a single task: Negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to reinforce these gains and create a strategic partnership with the Arab world's only democracy. He blew it. Negotiations, such as they were, collapsed last month. There is no agreement, no partnership.
Krauthammer endorsed and voted for McCain.
Remember, Kraut thinks precious One is eloquent and elegant.
We should have stated pulling out when they had their first free election...after that they should have won or lost freedom on their own...purple fingers and we have done our job..
Let those ingrates take care of themselves.
Krauthammer nails it.
From the rest of the article:
And it’s not as if that deadline snuck up on Obama. He had three years to prepare for it. Everyone involved, Iraqi and American, knew that the 2008 SOFA calling for full U.S. withdrawal was meant to be renegotiated. And all major parties but one (the Sadr faction) had an interest in some residual stabilizing U.S. force.
Three years, two abject failures. The first was the administration’s inability, at the height of American post-surge power, to broker a centrist nationalist coalition governed by the major blocs - one predominantly Shiite (Maliki’s), one predominantly Sunni (Ayad Allawi’s), one Kurdish - that among them won a large majority (69 percent) of seats in the 2010 election.
Vice President Joe Biden was given the job. He failed utterly. The government ended up effectively being run by a narrow sectarian coalition where the balance of power is held by the relatively small (12 percent) Iranian-client Sadr faction.
The second failure was the SOFA itself. The military recommended nearly 20,000 troops, considerably fewer than our 28,500 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan and 54,000 in Germany. The president rejected those proposals, choosing instead 3,000 to 5,000 troops.
A deployment so risibly small would have to expend all its energies simply protecting itself - the fate of our tragic, missionless 1982 Lebanon deployment - with no real capability to train the Iraqis, build their U.S.-equipped air force, mediate ethnic disputes, operate surveillance, and establish the kind of close military-to-military relations that undergird our strongest alliances.
The Obama proposal was an unmistakable signal of unseriousness. It became clear that he simply wanted out, leaving any Iraqi foolish enough to maintain a pro-American orientation exposed to Iranian influence. Message received. Just this past week, Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurds - for two decades the staunchest of U.S. allies - visited Tehran to bend a knee to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
It didn’t have to be this way. Our friends did not have to be left out in the cold to seek Iranian protection. Three years and a won war had given Obama the opportunity to establish a lasting strategic alliance with the Arab world’s second most important power. He failed, though he didn’t try very hard. The excuse is Iraqi refusal to grant legal immunity to U.S. forces. But the Bush administration encountered the same problem, and overcame it. Obama had little desire to. Indeed, he portrays the evacuation as the fulfillment of a campaign promise.
But surely the obligation to defend the security and the interests of the nation supersede personal vindication. Obama opposed the war, but when he became commander in chief the terrible price had already been paid in blood and treasure. His obligation was to make something of that sacrifice, to secure the strategic gains that sacrifice had already achieved.
He did not. After years of allegedly clumsy brutish force, Obama was to usher in an era of not hard power, not soft power, but smart power.
Which turns out in Iraq to be ... no power. Years from now we will be asking not “Who lost Iraq?” - that already is clear - but “Why?”
It's folly to think Iraq could be won. We set them up with a constitution based on Sharia. We made it worse for the remaining Christians. We pissed away a lot of our wealth on social improvements. Iraq is a folly. Always was and always will be. This one is Bush's fault.
The respectable way to treat Islamic nations who act against us is to sink their navies, bomb their airfields, and destroy their mechanized units all from the air. Use them as target practice. Don't spend anything on helping them to rebuild. Just weaken those in power so they have to fight for their lives against civil unrest. Let them kill each other off. In more extreme cases, give them the Carthage treatment.
I agree with every word. Thanks.
Very good perspective.
Maybe, maybe not. As the article goes on to say, The military recommended nearly 20,000 troops, considerably fewer than our 28,500 in Korea, 40,000 in Japan and 54,000 in Germany. The president rejected those proposals, choosing instead 3,000 to 5,000 troops. We seem to be "staying forever" in other countries in order to look after our interests. It seems Obama doesn't care about that. The meager few thousand troops left there will likely be spending all their time defending themselves from "insurgent" attacks rather than helping a country establish democratic reforms. I remember very well the purple ink stained fingers and the broad smiles of the Iraqi people when the got to vote in a REAL election for the first time in four decades. It brought me to tears. It also made me appreciate the rights we seem to take for granted. Rights this President is hacking away at day by day.
It's telling that the current Kurdish leader, Massoud Barzani, - for two decades the staunchest of U.S. allies - visited Tehran to bend a knee to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. What choice did they have? If America is not going to look out for them, the only other "protection" out there IS Iran. Obama took the thousands of American and Allied lives lost in this war and the tens of BILLIONS of dollars spent in Iraq since the start and, for another "campaign promise" to be checked off the to-do list, tossed them all into the trash bin of history. Something Liberals seem to think shows "progress". I call it treason and cowardice. Please, God, let America survive "progress".
That use to make me so mad I'd scream at the TV and demand he call them out for calling him a liar. But, he never did and I believe that is his downfall.
Neocon foreign policy lost.
umm... fault? it’s not usually considered your ‘fault’ when you obtain the goal you desired
iraq being run by the mooselim bro-hood is a victory for 0failure
he’s had one victory after another. as he said, he’s made all the right moves.
it’s your fault for mistaking his goals
News coverage for the last year or so by people who aren't total MSM liardrones, indicates the Iraqis are on the same page and pretty much get it.
If we had kept a few people there, it would have been less for "training" than as a tag on the IRGC mouth-breathers across the border.
We didn't waste our time. "Training" can take place in Saudi, Jordan, Qatar, wherever. We don't have to have guys hanging out waiting for a Sadr Brigade truck bomber to drive up. Everyone should take a chill pill. This can be worked out (Obozo won't want to work out, but that's another problem, all ours).
Amen....Chuck will still vote for Obama if a Christian is the candidate for our side.
I know exactly what you mean. It’s a big game, I’m coming to beleive.
The idea of nation building Iraq into a pro western democracy was a utopian fantasy from the very start. It’s an idea promoted by half-baked Western elites who make an idol out of democracy, insisting that democracy is the messiah that will bring peace to the world.
The underlying Islamic culture will always dominate Iraq. Giving it a democratic veneer is meaningless, unless you believe that having Iraq’s Muslims vote to oppress their Christians and other religious minorities is a rousing success.
Once we tire of spending the lives of our military and money that we borrow from the Chinese we will leave, whether that’s now or 50 years from now. Islam will still be there waiting to reassert itself with an internecine struggle for dominance between the Shia and Sunni.
What does work is finding authoritarian leaders who we can work with in Islamic countries, and supporting them. And even then we need to be wary. None of this will be of any consequence if the idea of a Caliphate spreads throughout the Umma.
It won’t be too long before those people with the purple thumbs begin seeking asylum. And I wouldn’t blame the a bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.