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?”
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.