How Much You Wanna Bet We Put The Amount Of Troops Back In Iraq We Should've Left There?

[EconChick]

How many should we have left there? What's that number, oh exalted economist/national security expert/ message board junkie?

Zero according to the SOFA treaty signed by Bush in 2008.

Obama was merely following the deadline of December 2011.

If he had broken the treaty then the GOP idiots would have had a scandal on their hands....Like a REAL one this time.

A SOFA is not a treaty, it is a contract. A contract that can be renegotiated at any time that the parties agree to renegotiate. The SOFA that Bush negotiated in 2008 expired three years after it went into effect, and consequently did not tie Obama's hands in any conceivable way.

You all seem to want to forget that Obama stated, numerous times, during the 2008 campaign that he had no intention of leaving any troops behind, and he carried out that promise against the advice of his military commanders. That strategic mistake gave rise to ISIS in Iraq, and leaves us with the situation that we find ourselves in today.

Obama owns the mess that his decisions created, and it takes either an ignorant ass, or a partisan hack to attempt to put that blame onto Bush. Bush has not been the President for six and one half years, and he has little to no influence on the incompetent boob that has been the President for six and one half years.

Very well said, Erand!

 

[Moonglow]

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

Those 1400 are not wearing boots, thus no boots on the ground. They levitate

-Geaux

They make low quarters...

 

[EconChick]

How Much You Wanna Bet We Put The Amount Of Troops Back In Iraq We Should've Left There?


Pretty doubtful.

Obama will continue to nickel and dime our commitment there, using mostly air strikes which can degrade the enemy but not win the war. He'll be terrified of suffering the slightest number of American casualties, knowing that his base will immediately want to cut and run if that happens, and fearful of what they will say about him.

It will have to wait until we get a President who wants to defeat the enemy (which is done by killing so many of them, regardless of how many of us they kill, that they finally scream "Uncle!"), instead of the present President who merely wants to "Send a message" to ISIS, and more importantly, to his base.

I certainly agree with the sentiment of this post. He WILL nickel and dime. We WILL have to wait for a president that has resolve, unlike this one. I just disagree with you on the matter of degree about nickel and diming. There's no doubt in my mind he'll send troops in after the election. Even Dempsey today pretty much telegraphed that during the hearing about ISIS. But it won't be enough. It will definitely be half assed.

The real point of my OP was to remind Obama supporters that not only should he have not pulled them all out, he's forced to go back and put them back anyway. Meanwhile tremendous damage has been done in the interim.

 

[Moonglow]

How much have you bet as of yet?

 

[EconChick]

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

if the trend continues that is certainly possible

the really bad part of that is that we gave up

the defensive positions

this would be pretty much starting at square one again

Yep. This is why blood's still squirting from my eyes. It has been since we completely abandoned the place.

 

[EconChick]

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq because Iraq insisted they be able to charge them with local crimes and Courts. That was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.

It was the correct choice. One of the few obama has made.

I'm not sure we should go in and save Iraq's ass.
Technically we should remove N Korea, Iran, and Syria's regimes. We should go into Somalia and destroy the Muslims there. We should destroy the Sunni's in Iraq. And we should send troops into Ukraine.
But we don't have that many troops.

Disagree with your analysis, Sly. And we definitely should not send troops to Ukraine. We should arm the Ukrainians and let them fight it..

 

[EconChick]

But after getting a load of ISIS, there are enough Arab troops to wreck them, with US Air power ONLY.So much dupe ignorance on here.... NOBODY wants US troops there except some RW morons...

You say so many clueless things it's hard to take you seriously. I spent 10 years in the Air Force. It was the greatest thing since sliced bread. But it can only augment real fighters on the ground, and right now no one's ponying up.

 

[EconChick]

There is no bet. We never left.

LOL. True. As dotcommie noted before she ran off scared....we've had plenty of PMCs doing the dirty work for Obama while he could lie to the gullible.

Except we're talking military folks (and yes Marines were left to protect the embassy and Erbil Consulate.)

 

[EconChick]

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

So..you knew all about ISIL before our troops left Iraq? Where are your posts about that....?

Oh, look, it's my favorite flake. I've never seen you get ONE post right, not one.

And yes, many of us knew this would happen. Now being the moron that you are, you'll get hung up on the exact name someone is calling an Islamic extremist group or which splinter group is prominent at any one time but no, it wasn't hard to see coming.

But what does that have to do with my OP? It has nothing to do with it.

Try to keep up darlin.

Better yet, go back to painting your nails.

Nice attempt to rewrite history.

I remember what the Obama haters were saying back when the troops were coming out of Iraq;

they were insisting that no CREDIT should go to Obama because it was BUSH's plan that was getting the troops out.

I think Claudette was one of those that posted that about 2 months ago and I disagreed with her.

I wasn't on this forum so how can you say I rewrote history? Talking to some of you is like talking to high schoolers.

 

[EconChick]

How much have you bet as of yet?

I've never seen anyone talk so much and say so little. I'm sure you're a nice guy but....

 

[EconChick]

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

That you and others on the right don't get it comes as no surprise, the consequence of your blind partisanism.

So my opinions couldn't possibly come from my extensive experience on the subject I guess, huh? LOL.


I first got there in early 2004 and I spent a lot of time yelling back to people in DC about what I saw that was wrong over the first few years. I hammered many people in the Administration for some of the things I was seeing. The only blind partisan is you, Jonesy. With your nose firmly up Obama's ass.

 

[EconChick]

Obama can't get out of office quick enough. His community action resume was no match for a mans job. He has failed miserably... thank goodness...

-Geaux

community organizer was his calling card

in fact the only thing on his resume

*yet* he can not even pull that off

building the invisible coalition

Again, well said.

 

[saveliberty]

A top member of the military appearing in a Congressional committee meeting today revealed several likely outcomes which he will recommend boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

 

[Moonglow]

How much have you bet as of yet?

I've never seen anyone talk so much and say so little. I'm sure you're a nice guy but....

well that was concise and to the point...what do you do for extras??

 

[Moonglow]

A top member of the military appearing in a Congressional committee meeting today revealed several likely outcomes which he will recommend boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

If it gets to that point, which really it's Oblama's wet dream to occupy Syria..

 

[saveliberty]

The nation's top military leader told Congress on Tuesday that if President Barack Obama's expanded military campaign to destroy Islamic extremists fails, he would recommend that the United States consider deploying American ground forces to Iraq.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel that the goal for American advisers is to help Iraqi forces with planning, logistics and coordinating military efforts by coalition partners to take out members of the Islamic State group.
"To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president," Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committees, using an alternative name for the group.
Pressed during questioning, Dempsey said he "would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of ground forces."

Hagel Dempsey defend US plan to target extremists

Ground troops plus advisors plus support personnel...

 

[EconChick]

Obama has already put the 1400 he publicly announced over the past few weeks. After the election he will certainly pour more in. By December 31, I predict at LEAST a Brigade will be sent. By next year there will be more.

Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq because Iraq insisted they be able to charge them with local crimes and Courts. That was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.

Roger, Gunny. I spent much time over there. I've also spent weeks here educating dumb ass libs on this board about the SOFA. Their small brains still can't comprehend what people like you and I are saying.

Chick- why did Iraq have any say at all? We took out Sadam and could have colonized the country if we wanted, yet we gave it back to the people to offer them a chance at a free life. I cannot understand why we had to get their permission to do anything, quite honestly. Can you enlighten us based on your experience?

Pennywise, you always ask thoughtful questions. I may have to get back with more on this one.

But for starters, thanks for describing why we're not imperialists like libtards on the left say we are. Unlike other invaders, we don't stay and gobble up territory to make part of our empire like imperialists do. Our purpose there was multifold, but one was to develop a relatively stable Iraq that would act as a stabilizer in the region versus the destabilizing force Saddam had been in the region from the outset. Another was to help liberate people from the oppression but it was not the primary reason. You'll hear liberal know-nothings say we weren't greeted as liberators...you'll even hear some military folks say that. But it depends on where you were. I had to work in every Province and each one was different. Typically military folks are assigned to just one region and they're influenced by what they saw in just that one area. I saw plenty who saw us as liberators. In my first trip up to Erbil by road, people including children lined the roads waving American flags. So when some jaded person tells you no one wanted us there, know they're talking out their asses. although when I worked in the Sunni area of Abu Ghraib, I saw the extreme hate people have talked about. But then those people had 80% unemployment and had a good reason.

(BTW for you third graders that take things so literally, I'm talking about RELATIVE stabilizer. Not perfection. And democracy in a Middle Eastern sense, not American sense.)

But back to your question, we worked with the Iraqi like hands in gloves. It was complete interdependency, which is why it was easy to see that by leaving we were removing the glue. The power was shared, even though you're correct that we could have imposed ourselves had we wanted. But we weren't there to take their oil and we weren't there to keep the country.

We were the glue on economic, political, and military issues. We helped grow them from infants (democratically speaking) and watched them evolve to teens. They still needed that interdependency to evolve further.

 

[EconChick]

If the neo-cons had power, the heavy units never would have left.

Kissinger's article Time explains why the neo-cons are bit players now.

Patently false idiot. No one wanted to keep 140,000 troops there IDIOT. The generals suggested about 30K so as to not squander the peace. (Even 10k could have helped.)

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace.

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

Let me repeat. Not squander the peace

One more time, Fakey, not squander the peace like Obama has done.

Misfirection by you simply underlines your lack of understanding.

I said if the neo cons had had their way, the heavy units would not have left.

hint: they are not going back

You have no idea what you're talking about when you say "heavy units." You know nothing about military logistics either.

 

[deltex1]

Some late breaking news....according to the chairman of the JCS...Obabble might approve boots on the ground in Iraq/Syria...on a case by case basis.THATS A NEW ONE ON ME....WAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS....stupid.


Obama will consider ground troops in Iraq on case-by-case basis Dempsey says Army Times armytimes.com

 

[EconChick]

The verbal agreements that were almost made were the SOFA 2011 I'm talking about as opposed to the 2008.

You were talking about the 2008 placeholder. That is very clear and well documented. You said the 2008 SOFA did not pass the legislature in Iraq.

No I didn't. Stop lying. I was talking about two dif SOFAs at all times and your thick brain will not grasp that no matter how many times I tell you.