In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

[JD Barleycorn]

http://news.yahoo.com/sunni-insurgen...hTXWcAFWHQtDMD

http://news.yahoo.com/u-watches-iraq...hT3VgA4I3QtDMD

Since Hillary and Obama failed to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq they have been losing ground. It is not accelerating. Insurgents have not taken entire cities again and they are holding mass executions. Bush won the war and Obama is losing the peace. Another feather in the head dress for Hillary.

[Whirlaway]

This is very bad............and this is the same group that we have been supporting in Syria....a rag tag collection of Islamists from around the world...the worst of the worst. Even Al Queda has distanced themselves from this group!

And, they are now that much richer; they have taken over the northern cities that have most of the oil/gas and looted the local banks of up to $425 million in hard currency.

Obama never secured a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. A shame.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

http://news.yahoo.com/sunni-insurgen...hTXWcAFWHQtDMD

http://news.yahoo.com/u-watches-iraq...hT3VgA4I3QtDMD

Since Hillary and Obama failed to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq they have been losing ground. It is not accelerating. Insurgents have not taken entire cities again and they are holding mass executions. Bush won the war and Obama is losing the peace. Another feather in the head dress for Hillary.

Are you fucking CRAZY- Bush won the war- is the most idiotic statement you made- invading Iraq was a trillion dollar mistake!!!!

[Whirlaway]

In 2011, before Obama pulled out, the Wall Street Journal presented this analysis:

OBAMA'S TRAGIC WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ

The administration didn't even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate.

A U.S. Army soldier stands by military armored vehicles ready to be shipped out of Iraq at a staging yard at Camp Victory that is set to close in Baghdad.

The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn't insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn't require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers' excessive demands, but he didn't.

He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to "end" the "war in Iraq." Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.

The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis.

When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks.

There is still a possibility for close U.S.-Iraqi military cooperation under the existing Strategic Framework Agreement. This could authorize joint exercises between the two countries and even the presence of a small U.S. Special Operations contingent in Iraq. But it is no substitute for the kind of robust U.S. military presence that would be needed to bolster Iraq's nascent democracy and counter interference from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional players that don't have Iraq's best interests at heart.

Iraq will increasingly find itself on its own, even though its air forces still lack the capability to defend its own airspace and its ground forces cannot carry out large-scale combined arms operations. Multiple terrorist groups also remain active, and almost as many civilians died in Iraq last year as in Afghanistan.

So the end of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is a tragedy, not a triumph—and a self-inflicted one at that.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...03931424188806

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

In 2011, before Obama pulled out, the Wall Street Journal presented this analysis:

OBAMA'S TRAGIC WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ

The administration didn't even open talks on renewing the Status of Forces Agreement until this summer, a few months before U.S. troops would have to start shuttering their remaining bases to pull out by Dec. 31. The previous agreement, in 2008, took a year to negotiate.

A U.S. Army soldier stands by military armored vehicles ready to be shipped out of Iraq at a staging yard at Camp Victory that is set to close in Baghdad.

The recent negotiations were jinxed from the start by the insistence of State Department and Pentagon lawyers that any immunity provisions be ratified by the Iraqi parliament—something that the U.S. hadn't insisted on in 2008 and that would be almost impossible to get today. In many other countries, including throughout the Arab world, U.S. personnel operate under a Memorandum of Understanding that doesn't require parliamentary ratification. Why not in Iraq? Mr. Obama could have chosen to override the lawyers' excessive demands, but he didn't.

He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to "end" the "war in Iraq." Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.

The Iraqis knew about these estimates: U.S. military commanders had communicated them directly to Iraqi leaders. Prime Minister Maliki was said (by those who had talked to him) to privately support such a troop commitment, and almost all Iraqi political leaders—representing every major faction except for the rabidly anti-American Sadrists—assented on Aug. 2 to opening negotiations on that basis.

When the White House then said it would consent to no more than 5,000 troops—a number that may not even have been able to adequately defend itself, much less carry out other missions—the Iraqis understandably figured that the U.S. wasn't serious about a continued commitment. Iraqi political leaders may have been willing to risk a domestic backlash to support a substantial commitment of 10,000 or more troops. They were not willing to stick their necks out for such a puny force. Hence the breakdown of talks.

There is still a possibility for close U.S.-Iraqi military cooperation under the existing Strategic Framework Agreement. This could authorize joint exercises between the two countries and even the presence of a small U.S. Special Operations contingent in Iraq. But it is no substitute for the kind of robust U.S. military presence that would be needed to bolster Iraq's nascent democracy and counter interference from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional players that don't have Iraq's best interests at heart.

Iraq will increasingly find itself on its own, even though its air forces still lack the capability to defend its own airspace and its ground forces cannot carry out large-scale combined arms operations. Multiple terrorist groups also remain active, and almost as many civilians died in Iraq last year as in Afghanistan.

So the end of the U.S. military mission in Iraq is a tragedy, not a triumph—and a self-inflicted one at that.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...03931424188806

So answer this question Whirlaway- Should the U.S still have combat troops in Iraq? Yes or No?

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

http://news.yahoo.com/sunni-insurgen...hTXWcAFWHQtDMD

http://news.yahoo.com/u-watches-iraq...hT3VgA4I3QtDMD

Since Hillary and Obama failed to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq they have been losing ground. It is not accelerating. Insurgents have not taken entire cities again and they are holding mass executions. Bush won the war and Obama is losing the peace. Another feather in the head dress for Hillary.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

This is very bad............and this is the same group that we have been supporting in Syria....a rag tag collection of Islamists from around the world...the worst of the worst. Even Al Queda has distanced themselves from this group!

And, they are now that much richer; they have taken over the northern cities that have most of the oil/gas and looted the local banks of up to $425 million in hard currency.

Obama never secured a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. A shame.

Then both of you guys are agreeing it was a stupid war.

Would you have left out troops there if they could be tried in a Iraq court?

[Whirlaway]

The question is why was Obama willing to leave a paltry 5,000 US military; when he was advised it wouldn't be a sufficient number to protect themselves ?

Why was Obama so committed to putting 5,000 in harms way, but not a greater number that would guarantee stability for Iraq and safety for our troops?

[i'va biggen]

See #6

[Whirlaway]

What is happening in Iraq is not only an Obama failure; but is also a Hillary Clinton failure.

As SOS she failed............American blood and treasure wasted.

[i'va biggen]

Why stop there you silly fuck? Why not include every democrat in the nation plus the military .

[gnadfly]

Impossible. President Obama said that al Qaeda was on the run.

[Yssup Rider]

Fuck Iraq. Fuck Iran. But most importantly ... FUCK YOU!

[i'va biggen]

Everyone who knew anything about the Iraqi's said there would be a civil war when the USA pulled the troops out. They were right.

[IIFFOFRDB]

We armed them... I wonder if they got some of the 6 billion dollars missing from the State Department?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

We armed them... I wonder if they got some of the 6 billion dollars missing from the State Department?

did you put anything into it, disability whore?