Posted on 06/15/2014 2:54:25 PM PDT by Kaslin
When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, Americans were told it would be a quick, simple project. When asked how long the war might last, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said airily, "Six days, six weeks, I doubt six months."
So what's the complaint today from those who advocated the war most vigorously? We left too soon.
Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte put out a statement the other day blaming the recent rout of Iraqi government forces on "President Obama's decision to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq in 2011." That final pullout came in December of 2011, or more than eight years after Rumsfeld expected our war to be over.
The hawks have as much trouble remembering the past as they do predicting the future. They forget that the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, which mandated the removal of all American military personnel by the end of 2011, was signed by President George W. Bush.
It was also signed by Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki. "In the end, the Iraqi leadership did not try to get a commitment through their parliament that would have made possible a continued U.S. presence after December 31," wrote Robert Gates, who was secretary of defense at the time. "Maliki was just too fearful of the political consequences. Most Iraqis wanted us gone."
Colin Kahl, who as a top Pentagon official under Obama tried to get an agreement to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, tells me that al-Maliki "was conscious of the extreme unpopularity of a continued U.S. presence with his Shia constituency. He had no interest in a sizable U.S. presence along the Arab-Kurd divide, which is what all our big troop options assumed." He also refused to give our troops the legal protections they get in other countries with U.S. bases, which was a deal-breaker.
Obama failed to secure the agreement, just as Bush had. Maybe the accord was impossible. If not, then Bush merits as much blame as Obama for the fact that it didn't happen.
Of course, the greater blame lies with Bush, since it was he and Dick Cheney who stormed into Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction, with no understanding of its internal politics, the violence they were precipitating, or the immense difficulty of constructing a stable order in an alien land. The insurgency did not begin when Obama was inaugurated. It began in 2003, and it has never ended.
The Bush administration managed to tamp it down by flooding the country with an additional 36,000 U.S. troops in 2007. But the point of the surge was not merely to suppress the insurgency. It was to give al-Maliki the time and space to consolidate control, create reliable security forces and reconcile with Sunnis who felt imperiled. He didn't do any of this, and we couldn't do it for him.
The surprise of recent days has been the utter uselessness of the Iraqi military, in which the U.S. invested so much. Some units collapsed under attack by far smaller forces, with soldiers fleeing and changing into civilian clothes as quickly as they could. At this stage, the best hope for defending Baghdad lies not with government troops but with pro-government Shiite militias allied with Iran. Yes, Iran.
We could always ship the Iraqi army weapons and equipment. But we already tried that, with destructive results. The Washington Post reported that the insurgents "seized large quantities of weaponry from the security forces when they overran their bases, including vehicles, arms and ammunition that will help the group press further offensives. Much of the equipment was probably supplied by the United States, Iraq's biggest provider of weapons."
We could also resort to air strikes, drone attacks or even ground troops. But if eight years of fighting by the American forces didn't save Iraq from chaos, another round is not likely to make much difference.
The only answer the war supporters have ever had, since their absurdly optimistic initial predictions went awry, is to continue the war indefinitely. Col. Pete Mansoor, a top aide to Gen. David Petraeus when he was commander of our forces in Iraq, said the U.S. effort would have to go on for "many, many years to come." Another Petraeus adviser, Stephen Biddle, said "perhaps 20 years" would suffice.
How about forever? Except it might not be long enough.
Get lost troll
I do miss Saddam. Sure, he was a genocidal psychopath. But who over there isn’t?
I do miss Saddam. Sure, he was a genocidal psychopath. But who over there isn’t?
Go pi$$ up a rope, moron.
Exactly. He is par for the course for the Arab world. It was a fool’s errand to try to create Democracies over there.
Should have left after getting Saddam. Actually should have taken care of Afghanistan first one thing as a time.
And just what do you think was going to replace him?
You can't have democracy where Islam reigns. Islam is a fundamentally totalitarian system. It simply cannot abide the existence - no, even the idea of - civil society.
The best that we can hope for over there is that strongmen whom we can buy off or influence rule. We had that in Saddam. Sure, Shrub's daddy had to kick his ass. I was all for that. But Shrub's papa was way too smart to smash Humpty Dumpty and then try to put him back together again. He understood that Saddam's job for us was to keep a lid on the Brit-created cauldron called Iraq.
Tragically, his idiot kid wasn't so smart.
But neither were the American public at large. The fact that "conservatives" here think going into Iraq in the first place was just a peachy keen idea gives me little hope for the near-term survival of whatever is left of the Republic.
You can't have democracy where Islam reigns. Islam is a fundamentally totalitarian system. It simply cannot abide the existence - no, even the idea of - civil society.
The best that we can hope for over there is that strongmen whom we can buy off or influence rule. We had that in Saddam. Sure, Shrub's daddy had to kick his ass. I was all for that. But Shrub's papa was way too smart to smash Humpty Dumpty and then try to put him back together again. He understood that Saddam's job for us was to keep a lid on the Brit-created cauldron called Iraq.
Tragically, his idiot kid wasn't so smart.
But neither were the American public at large. The fact that "conservatives" here think going into Iraq in the first place was just a peachy keen idea gives me little hope for the near-term survival of whatever is left of the Republic.
Why aren't they claiming credit for what they've done?
There's really no lower form of life than a Neocon.
No different than what’s there now. That whole region has been a mess since pre-Ottoman times.
This is what I always understood, because the USS Abraham Lincoln had just returned from it’s mission.
CRIMINAL?! Srsly? Some very interesting posts you got there on other threads in your history too ...
Barf alert needs an added nausea alert and projectile vomiting caution ... the criminal regime in power now is writing the History the way it fits their feckless failure being shifted to ‘It’s Bush’s fault’. These criminal bastards always cause more death and mayhem than anything else spewing out of America under their control. The Russian leadership must be literally rolling in the aisle laughing so hard at our foolishness. America is no longer a Republic of we the people, and the foolish people are unable to see that truth as it stomps them down and destroys the lives of hundreds of millions world-wide in their name.
The truth means nothing to democrtas and apparently not to their enablers, the republicants. Weapons of mass destruction were found and neutralized in Iraq. were atomic weapons found? No, just the means to build them. But if Saran gas in delivery systems is not weapons of mass destruction then democrats should sprinkle them on their cereal and sugar their lattes with that little item. The press should be made to ‘neutralize’ the saran by drinking the binary components, the enemy bastards.
“” The best that we can hope for over there is that strongmen whom we can buy off or influence rule. We had that in Saddam. Sure, Shrub’s daddy had to kick his ass. I was all for that. But Shrub’s papa was way too smart to smash Humpty Dumpty and then try to put him back together again. He understood that Saddam’s job for us was to keep a lid on the Brit-created cauldron called Iraq.
Tragically, his idiot kid wasn’t so smart.””
You maybe just forgot that Clinton campaigned on taking out Saddam in 1992 or that he bombed Iraq starting in June of 1993 and continuing for eight years.
What was so great about Kuwait?
We know the media made up stories about Iraqi “atrocities” there. And we also know that the Kuwaitis were side drilling into Iraqi oil fields.
Who cares if they were Iraq’s “19th province”. We should never have gotten involved in intra-Arab squabbles.
Agreed. Free trade with all, messy foreign entanglements with none. Fortress America. If they attack us, then we waste them. Think Genghis Khan on steroids. Otherwise, let them kill each other. It’s no skin off our nose.
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.