Skip to comments.U.S. Troops Return to Iraq...Too Little, Too Late?
Posted on 06/19/2014 1:44:43 PM PDT by Kaslin
George W. Bush never claimed to be prescient, but here he is in 2007, warning us what would happen if the United States prematurely pulled its troops out of Iraq before Iraqi forces were sufficiently trained, equipped and motivated to defend the country we gave back to them after the ouster of Saddam Hussein:
"To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we're ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaida. It'd mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It'd mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It'd mean we'd be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."
President Obama is proving Bush right, sort of. He is deploying 275 troops back to Iraq, not for combat, but to secure American assets there and protect those in the U.S. Embassy. We will not engage. We will secure and protect. Won't that make a charming picture for America's enemies -- the "Great Satan" retreating in the face of a few thousand members of "Allah's army"? It will serve as a productive recruiting film for more jihadists to come join the fight.
The most powerful nation on Earth, supposedly, has arrived at this embarrassing moment precisely because we refuse to use that power with sufficient force and commitment. America's enemies know the will of the American people has a relatively short shelf life. We tire too quickly, preferring to focus more on celebrity culture then on those who have vowed to destroy us. We are weary of war. If the same standards we use for fighting wars today were applied in World War II, Nazi Germany would have won.
Restrictive rules of engagement have also weakened the ability of American forces to defend themselves and achieve their objectives. Too often soldiers are told they cannot fire unless fired upon, which has likely led to the killing and wounding of U.S. soldiers. Pre-emptive strikes appear to be things of the past.
Jihadists have long hid among civilians, knowing of America's (and Israel's) reluctance to cause collateral damage. The jihadists know this, and endangering civilians appears to have become central to their strategy. When civilians are killed (or even when some pretend to be dead for propaganda purposes) and their pictures are put on TV and the Internet as proof of the West's ferocity and heartlessness, it can lead to the weakening of Western resolve and cause political damage to those in office.
Enemies and adversaries of the United States no longer fear this country. Under President Obama, people like Russia's Vladimir Putin, dictators like Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and jihadists of no known national origin (though increasing numbers of Westerners, including some Americans, are joining them), see an opportunity for chaos created by a president who appears to think "climate change" is a greater threat to the world than terrorism. If President Obama fought terrorism with the same zeal he devotes to "climate change," the terrorists might be the ones retreating, not America.
Is the administration still trying to leverage this mess to benefit their Saudi masters? That's like letting a cancer survive because it might kmock off some other disease.
Way too Little—way too late. Its like sending six men to the Alamo—it will not stop the fall.
We won the war with many thousands of troops. Do we want to leave a few thousand troops to keep the win? Obama said no. Now he says we want to send a couple of hundred to a losing cause? FUBO.
A take-over of the oil fields in southern Iraq will pretty much end Obama’s presidency. Surging oil prices would devastate the economy. Just saying.
Hey Cal, I was warning about this in 2003 when your boy Dubya couldn’t wait to swat that hornets nest. I know how desperate you and your friends must be to pin this CF on somebody else. I wasn’t fooled then or now.
Once a funded group goes rogue, shouldn't they be eliminated rather than let the cancer spread? Not doing so is insane.....this is neither the time to punish Maliki for being a bad ally nor to do the regime change thing again. Also, Assad should be allowed to regain power in Syria....what happens if ISIS wins there?
Custer, here we come!
Bush said “no” by signing a status of forces agreement that Iraq shoved down his throat.
bump for later
We spent ten years and billions of dollars equipping and training them, and they threw sown their weapons, stripped off their uniforms and ran away. What good is more of the same supposed to do? Isn’t that supposed to be the definition of insanity?
We trained them, we equipped them but they simply do not and obviously never will have the motivation to fight.
We went what there in the terms of lives and treasure and the entire nation is getting run over by a 10,000 man army? When there was that picture on Drudge of all the new vehicles outfitted with weaponry, all lined up and driving down the road. Where were the drones to choke the convoy then close air assault to annihilate this group in their tracks?
How can this Iraqi Army just desert like that too, knowing full well their fate at the hands of these animals. If that isnt motivation to fight, I sure would like to find out what is.
I remember John F. Kennedy assuring us that we were only sending “advisers” to Vietnam. Now we have a wall with the names of 48,000 Americans who died there.
Oh, we were also involved in “regime change” in South Vietnam — the assassination of Nguyen Dinh Diem.
Without a Status of Forces Agreement, the only thing they can do, outside the US embassy, is to give classes.
And is 300+ the 300 already there much different than the 3,000 that Obama said would be the max under any SoF Agreement?
It would be prudent to use this crisis to negotiate a new SOFA. But neither the Sunnis nor Shia want to cede operational latitude to American forces. I.e., allow US forces to operate autonomously in Iraq, with legal immunity. Reason #1 for this IMO is each thinks they’ll prevail and be in control of the country so neither wants a potential referee limiting their efforts to gain and maintain control. Indicator neither intends to play fair with anyone else. These people are Old School. Very Old School.
In hindsight I’d say sovereignty should have been put off to 2012 then dictate that we stay behind at our bases in Mosul, Balad, Victory-BIAP, and Basrah.