Obama Declares Victory And Leaves In Defeat

[mudwhistle]

Obama said yesterday that he's pulling everyone out of Iraq.

Good. I fully support that decision. I don't agree with the timing. It should have been done 2 years ago, but that's beside the point. I'm tired of waiting for this President to decide when would be the right time to declare victory and leave the region to it's own demise.

In my opinion Obama has no business being Commander in Chief. It doesn't matter how many bad guys he claims he assassinated. He cannot win a war. He can only make it look like he's winning before withdrawing with what little honor he has left.

I figured he'd wait till next Spring but he's trying to win re-election now, not actually do the right thing.

Obama feels the time is right. 2 years ago wasn't the right time. He put off this decision for more dramatic effect. People actually think Obama is a great wartime President now and he fully intends on taking advantage of that.

In truth Obama has been a disaster in Iraq. He couldn't even negotiate immunity for our troops against Iraqi prosecution. Our troops could be snatched off of the side of the road or in a restaurant and charged with murder or mayhem pretty much at the whims of the host country. This is why we're leaving, not because the mission is over.

He says now is the time to get back to the business of fixing the economy.

Excuse me, but wasn't that your number one goal this Summer????

Oh, yeah, right. Now is the right time.

His only hope is that once we leave the folks he leaves behind don't come under attack by peaceful protesters in a manner reminiscent of the Iranian Hostage situation.

Cross your fingers Barry.

 

[ladyliberal]

Given that the US successfully overthrew Hussein, I don't think it is fair to say we were "defeated". It might be fair to say that we "failed". Certainly, we failed to halt a major WMD program.

But even if we concede that the overall intervention was in Iraq, I'm not sure how one could argue that Obama's command was a failure. I'm not sure if any of Obama's stated goals in Iraq weren't met-- the main one was to withdraw the troops, preferably sooner than this. If you look at Politifact's count on Obama's campaign promises, it lists only one goal for Iraq, which has been kept: PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are about Military. Obama might have failed to do what you wanted to do, but he seems to have been able to largely do what he said he would (admittedly a low bar, he made many more promises about Afghanistan).

Part of the reason we are leaving now does seem to be because of the Iraqi government. When we voluntarily returned sovereignty to them in 2004 (it's been awhile, hasn't it?) we implicitly gave them the right to refuse privileges to our troops or even to order them to leave the country. That seven years later they are exercising this right, when US policy was already to withdraw troops on a similar timeline, can hardly be called a defeat.

 

[JoeB131]

Can't see a big problem here.

We want to get out.

The Iraqis want us to leave.

Frankly, I'd prefer that to something like Korea, where we are keeping a whole division on standby to defend the third richest country in Asia from the poorest country in Asia from a war that ended 60 years ago.

On a larger note, perhaps it is time for us to stop trying to be the world's policeman. We have troops in over 100 countries, and we are broke! The world doesn't seem to appreciate our efforts all that much. You get the lazy socialist states of Europe who spend less than 1% of GDP defending their own countries while we spend 6% of GDP protecting the whole world.

At the very least, we should actually charge for the service.

 

[mudwhistle]

Given that the US successfully overthrew Hussein, I don't think it is fair to say we were "defeated". It might be fair to say that we "failed". Certainly, we failed to halt a major WMD program.

But even if we concede that the overall intervention was in Iraq, I'm not sure how one could argue that Obama's command was a failure. I'm not sure if any of Obama's stated goals in Iraq weren't met-- the main one was to withdraw the troops, preferably sooner than this. If you look at Politifact's count on Obama's campaign promises, it lists only one goal for Iraq, which has been kept: PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are about Military. Obama might have failed to do what you wanted to do, but he seems to have been able to largely do what he said he would (admittedly a low bar, he made many more promises about Afghanistan).

Part of the reason we are leaving now does seem to be because of the Iraqi government. When we voluntarily returned sovereignty to them in 2004 (it's been awhile, hasn't it?) we implicitly gave them the right to refuse privileges to our troops or even to order them to leave the country. That seven years later they are exercising this right, when US policy was already to withdraw troops on a similar timeline, can hardly be called a defeat.

It is a diplomatic defeat and a tactical defeat because not only couldn't we assure that our troops would be safe from unfair prosecution by Iranians with scores to settle, but leaving now means that Iran will be able to exert more influence in Iraq, the primary reason we remained in the first place.

It is a defeat plain and simple.

 

[mudwhistle]

Can't see a big problem here.

We want to get out.

The Iraqis want us to leave.

Frankly, I'd prefer that to something like Korea, where we are keeping a whole division on standby to defend the third richest country in Asia from the poorest country in Asia from a war that ended 60 years ago.

On a larger note, perhaps it is time for us to stop trying to be the world's policeman. We have troops in over 100 countries, and we are broke! The world doesn't seem to appreciate our efforts all that much. You get the lazy socialist states of Europe who spend less than 1% of GDP defending their own countries while we spend 6% of GDP protecting the whole world.

At the very least, we should actually charge for the service.

Everything you said spells defeat.

 

[BDBoop]

Are we sharing our dreams now? Don't know that it belongs in the politics folder, but whatever.

I dreamed that I was upset because nobody told me there was a branch growing out of my eyebrows, and it was quite unruly.

 

[AquaAthena]

Obama said yesterday that he's pulling everyone out of Iraq.

Good. I fully support that decision. I don't agree with the timing. It should have been done 2 years ago, but that's beside the point. I'm tired of waiting for this President to decide when would be the right time to declare victory and leave the region to it's own demise.

In my opinion Obama has no business being Commander in Chief. It doesn't matter how many bad guys he claims he assassinated. He cannot win a war. He can only make it look like he's winning before withdrawing with what little honor he has left.

I figured he'd wait till next Spring but he's trying to win re-election now, not actually do the right thing.

Obama feels the time is right. 2 years ago wasn't the right time. He put off this decision for more dramatic effect. People actually think Obama is a great wartime President now and he fully intends on taking advantage of that.

In truth Obama has been a disaster in Iraq. He couldn't even negotiate immunity for our troops against Iraqi prosecution. Our troops could be snatched off of the side of the road or in a restaurant and charged with murder or mayhem pretty much at the whims of the host country. This is why we're leaving, not because the mission is over.

He says now is the time to get back to the business of fixing the economy.

Excuse me, but wasn't that your number one goal this Summer????

Oh, yeah, right. Now is the right time.

His only hope is that once we leave the folks he leaves behind don't come under attack by peaceful protesters in a manner reminiscent of the Iranian Hostage situation.

Cross your fingers Barry.

Mudwhistle, you, as a former Green Beret, have been around and, engaged in many battles, and I listen when you speak about the military and political decisions, that involve American so-called leaders.

You, and my fave intellectual, Charles Krauthammar, agree on many things involving the decision to pull ALL of our troops from Iraq, and the advantage it gives to Iran. And I give your post 5 stars as well as pos reps coming your way, because I agree with your opinions expressed today.

 

[JoeB131]

Can't see a big problem here.

We want to get out.

The Iraqis want us to leave.

Frankly, I'd prefer that to something like Korea, where we are keeping a whole division on standby to defend the third richest country in Asia from the poorest country in Asia from a war that ended 60 years ago.

On a larger note, perhaps it is time for us to stop trying to be the world's policeman. We have troops in over 100 countries, and we are broke! The world doesn't seem to appreciate our efforts all that much. You get the lazy socialist states of Europe who spend less than 1% of GDP defending their own countries while we spend 6% of GDP protecting the whole world.

At the very least, we should actually charge for the service.

Everything you said spells defeat.

Defeat from whom?

Why is that our problem to start with?

I think we should defend our own country. Period. We can do that for a fraction of what we are doing now.

Instead, we are defending EVERYONE'S countries and picking fights that have nothing to do with us.

Let's take Korea. Yeah, in 1951, in the scale of a larger conflict between the Sino-Soviet alliance and the western alliance, taking that stand made sense.

Today. Meh. China is already doing a lot more damage to us by stealing our jobs left and right, and they've given up on the whole Communism thing. Russia's just happy they aren't breaking apart any further than they already have.

It's just a petty fight between the Koreas they ought to work out themselves. And the fact that we spend billions FEEDING North Korea so it doesn't attack while spending Billions DEFENDING South Korea in case it does. Meanwhile, we are 14 trillion in debt and we have roads falling apart because there isn't enough money to fix them.

Less chest thumping, more body building. We need to focus within and fix our own problems. And leave the rest of the world to itself.

 

[JoeB131]

It is a diplomatic defeat and a tactical defeat because not only couldn't we assure that our troops would be safe from unfair prosecution by Iranians with scores to settle, but leaving now means that Iran will be able to exert more influence in Iraq, the primary reason we remained in the first place.

It is a defeat plain and simple.

Well, we should have thought of that before we toppled Saddam.

What everyone forgets is that Iraq is an artificial creation of British empire-builders. Give the country to it's Sunni/Hashemite minority to run because we don't really trust the Shi'ite majority.

Saddam kept the Iranians at bay, and to our disgrace that's why we tolerated his bad behavior up until he invaded Kuwait.

But once you say that Saddam had to go, and we want real democracy and not just another Sunni thug who will take orders from us, then you are looking at a Shia dominated state that will have closer ties to Iran.

Another point. Part of this whole strategy is a reflection of where we are at. We could have dominated Iraq completely to our will. We could have send in a million troops (after drafting them) and completely crushed all resistance, and then spent a decade creating a state in our image. Kind of like what we did with Japan and West Germany.

The problem is, those efforts came with a cost people were willing to pay in the 40's and 50's that they would be unwilling to pay today. - Higher taxes, more government, loss of lives.

 

[mudwhistle]

Can't see a big problem here.

We want to get out.

The Iraqis want us to leave.

Frankly, I'd prefer that to something like Korea, where we are keeping a whole division on standby to defend the third richest country in Asia from the poorest country in Asia from a war that ended 60 years ago.

On a larger note, perhaps it is time for us to stop trying to be the world's policeman. We have troops in over 100 countries, and we are broke! The world doesn't seem to appreciate our efforts all that much. You get the lazy socialist states of Europe who spend less than 1% of GDP defending their own countries while we spend 6% of GDP protecting the whole world.

At the very least, we should actually charge for the service.

Everything you said spells defeat.

Defeat from whom?

Why is that our problem to start with?

I think we should defend our own country. Period. We can do that for a fraction of what we are doing now.

Instead, we are defending EVERYONE'S countries and picking fights that have nothing to do with us.

Let's take Korea. Yeah, in 1951, in the scale of a larger conflict between the Sino-Soviet alliance and the western alliance, taking that stand made sense.

Today. Meh. China is already doing a lot more damage to us by stealing our jobs left and right, and they've given up on the whole Communism thing. Russia's just happy they aren't breaking apart any further than they already have.

It's just a petty fight between the Koreas they ought to work out themselves. And the fact that we spend billions FEEDING North Korea so it doesn't attack while spending Billions DEFENDING South Korea in case it does. Meanwhile, we are 14 trillion in debt and we have roads falling apart because there isn't enough money to fix them.

Less chest thumping, more body building. We need to focus within and fix our own problems. And leave the rest of the world to itself.

On every point you made, which I agree with, this can only be a defeat.

We're basically trashing the mission and bailing because it's too tough for Barry to handle.

It serves one purpose....buying votes.

 

[J.E.D]

Let me get this straight: Bush/Cheney started an unprovoked war with Iraq that has resulted in the deaths of over 4500 US service members and probably tens-of-thousands (probably more) of innocent Iraqi civilians, and caused Iraq to be over-run with AQ terrorists (none of which existed before in Iraq). After 8 years of that mess, Obama decides it's time to bring the troops home; but only after he ordered the mission that took down Bin Laden and got the US involved in the NATO mission that lead to the downfall of Ghadaffi. And you want me to believe that not only is this a defeat for Obama, but that he's also an incompetent CIC?



Hitting the bottle a little early today, or are you just filled with so much hatred for Obama and jealousy of his accomplishments that you're incapable of coming up with a sane argument against him?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Given that the US successfully overthrew Hussein, I don't think it is fair to say we were "defeated". It might be fair to say that we "failed". Certainly, we failed to halt a major WMD program.

But even if we concede that the overall intervention was in Iraq, I'm not sure how one could argue that Obama's command was a failure. I'm not sure if any of Obama's stated goals in Iraq weren't met-- the main one was to withdraw the troops, preferably sooner than this. If you look at Politifact's count on Obama's campaign promises, it lists only one goal for Iraq, which has been kept: PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are about Military. Obama might have failed to do what you wanted to do, but he seems to have been able to largely do what he said he would (admittedly a low bar, he made many more promises about Afghanistan).

Part of the reason we are leaving now does seem to be because of the Iraqi government. When we voluntarily returned sovereignty to them in 2004 (it's been awhile, hasn't it?) we implicitly gave them the right to refuse privileges to our troops or even to order them to leave the country. That seven years later they are exercising this right, when US policy was already to withdraw troops on a similar timeline, can hardly be called a defeat.

It is a diplomatic defeat and a tactical defeat because not only couldn't we assure that our troops would be safe from unfair prosecution by Iranians with scores to settle, but leaving now means that Iran will be able to exert more influence in Iraq, the primary reason we remained in the first place.

It is a defeat plain and simple.

We won. Didn't you read the sign; "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED", posted high and proud on the superstructure above President Bush's puffed chest.

In the end, which we now see coming at the end of this year (over seven and one half years later) we have a Pyrrhic victory; 4,500 dead American's, nearly a trillion dollars spent and more in years to come to treat and support those who gave their arms, legs, vision and mental health to the rigors of a war of choice.

Claiming Obama should have left two years ago is nothing more than partisan hackery and abject ignorance. Nixon boasted he would achieve peace with honor, Peace came when Marine and Air Force helicopters moved the last thousand Americans and well-to-do South Vietnamese from the roof of our embassy (soon to fall) to the carrier task force waiting in the South China Sea in 24 hours. Nothing honorable about that fiasco.

 

[alan1]

Obama: U.S. to withdraw most Iraq troops by August 2010 - CNN
Article date: February 27, 2009

Snip,

Between 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, he said. They would be withdrawn gradually until all U.S. forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 -- the deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.

Just a reminder to all the fools that think Mr Obama orchestrated this plan of action.
I'm sure the MSM isn't reminding them who planned this, but instead, is giving credit to Mr Obama.
And it is one year later.

 

[JoeB131]

On every point you made, which I agree with, this can only be a defeat.

We're basically trashing the mission and bailing because it's too tough for Barry to handle.

It serves one purpose....buying votes.

Well, that's democracy. Barack Obama won because he promised to end the war, and he ended the war. If it goes badly, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

As far as the "mission", I think that our Iraq policy eventually became Santayana's definition of a fanatic. One who redoubles his effort while losing sight of his goal.

Our original goals in Iraq were to topple Saddam and get rid of his WMD program, which it turned out he didn't actually have. But I'll give us a mulligan, we had every reason to think he did because that's what he wanted people to think. He's like the punk who goes into a liquor store with a starter pistol and then whines when the cop shoots him.

So what was our goal after that? To establish democracy? What if they vote for an Iranian style state because that's what they want?

If we were fighting for the right of Iraqis to make their own choices, we can't complain when they make choices we don't like or think are wrong.

I look at the brighter side. The country didn't break apart, which it looked like it might do around 2006 or so. The Iraqi security forces do seem to have a handle on the country, for now. Not sure if there was much more we could do.

I think Iraq will be stable because of George Bush's resoluteness on insisting we finish what we started, compared to Libya, which I suspect will collapse into Somali like chaos because Obama let the dice fly.

 

[Full-Auto]

Let me get this straight: Bush/Cheney started an unprovoked war with Iraq that has resulted in the deaths of over 4500 US service members and probably tens-of-thousands (probably more) of innocent Iraqi civilians, and caused Iraq to be over-run with AQ terrorists (none of which existed before in Iraq). After 8 years of that mess, Obama decides it's time to bring the troops home; but only after he ordered the mission that took down Bin Laden and got the US involved in the NATO mission that lead to the downfall of Ghadaffi. And you want me to believe that not only is this a defeat for Obama, but that he's also an incompetent CIC?



Hitting the bottle a little early today, or are you just filled with so much hatred for Obama and jealousy of his accomplishments that you're incapable of coming up with a sane argument against him?

Unprovoked? You are incredibly stupid.......................Shooting at aircraft is not showing any hostile intent. Why does our FAA get all butt hurt about a few lasers?

 

[The T]

Can't see a big problem here.

We want to get out.

The Iraqis want us to leave.

Frankly, I'd prefer that to something like Korea, where we are keeping a whole division on standby to defend the third richest country in Asia from the poorest country in Asia from a war that ended 60 years ago.

On a larger note, perhaps it is time for us to stop trying to be the world's policeman. We have troops in over 100 countries, and we are broke! The world doesn't seem to appreciate our efforts all that much. You get the lazy socialist states of Europe who spend less than 1% of GDP defending their own countries while we spend 6% of GDP protecting the whole world.

At the very least, we should actually charge for the service.

The Korean War is on hiatus. Anything could re-ignite it.

 

[mudwhistle]

um.....we have been planning to leave since Bush, Obama used Bushes timetable.

all i see here is more whining.

Untrue..

Prove it's Bush's timetable.

Bush said before he left that it would depend on military commander's recommendations, not political expediency. No set timetable was ever made.

Apparently Obama has gone around the recommendations of his commanders.

He couldn't exert any influence on the ongoing negotiations for us to remain, so he's throwing up his hands and walking out.....putting a positive spin on the situation.

 

[JoeB131]

Let me get this straight: Bush/Cheney started an unprovoked war with Iraq that has resulted in the deaths of over 4500 US service members and probably tens-of-thousands (probably more) of innocent Iraqi civilians, and caused Iraq to be over-run with AQ terrorists (none of which existed before in Iraq). After 8 years of that mess, Obama decides it's time to bring the troops home; but only after he ordered the mission that took down Bin Laden and got the US involved in the NATO mission that lead to the downfall of Ghadaffi. And you want me to believe that not only is this a defeat for Obama, but that he's also an incompetent CIC?



Hitting the bottle a little early today, or are you just filled with so much hatred for Obama and jealousy of his accomplishments that you're incapable of coming up with a sane argument against him?

Wow, so many mistatements in that paragraph, I don't know where to begin.

The war was hardly "unprovoked". Saddam was a monster and he got what was coming to him, and his people were glad to be rid of him. He caused the deaths of over 2 million people. You like to forget about that, for some reason, and treat him like he was a clubbed baby seal.

Ghadaffy wasn't a problem for us, and all Obama did was tie us into something that wasn't our problem.

I give Obama credit for the fact the death of Bin Laden happened on his watch, although it would not have happened without the intelligence and military efforts made by his predecessor in developing the kind of forces to pull off that kind of mission.

 

[mudwhistle]

It is a diplomatic defeat and a tactical defeat because not only couldn't we assure that our troops would be safe from unfair prosecution by Iranians with scores to settle, but leaving now means that Iran will be able to exert more influence in Iraq, the primary reason we remained in the first place.

It is a defeat plain and simple.

Well, we should have thought of that before we toppled Saddam.

What everyone forgets is that Iraq is an artificial creation of British empire-builders. Give the country to it's Sunni/Hashemite minority to run because we don't really trust the Shi'ite majority.

Saddam kept the Iranians at bay, and to our disgrace that's why we tolerated his bad behavior up until he invaded Kuwait.

But once you say that Saddam had to go, and we want real democracy and not just another Sunni thug who will take orders from us, then you are looking at a Shia dominated state that will have closer ties to Iran.

Another point. Part of this whole strategy is a reflection of where we are at. We could have dominated Iraq completely to our will. We could have send in a million troops (after drafting them) and completely crushed all resistance, and then spent a decade creating a state in our image. Kind of like what we did with Japan and West Germany.

The problem is, those efforts came with a cost people were willing to pay in the 40's and 50's that they would be unwilling to pay today. - Higher taxes, more government, loss of lives.

We're too Politically Correct to be up to the task anymore.

Defeat.

 

[Cuyo]

Let me get this straight: Bush/Cheney started an unprovoked war with Iraq that has resulted in the deaths of over 4500 US service members and probably tens-of-thousands (probably more) of innocent Iraqi civilians, and caused Iraq to be over-run with AQ terrorists (none of which existed before in Iraq). After 8 years of that mess, Obama decides it's time to bring the troops home; but only after he ordered the mission that took down Bin Laden and got the US involved in the NATO mission that lead to the downfall of Ghadaffi. And you want me to believe that not only is this a defeat for Obama, but that he's also an incompetent CIC?



Hitting the bottle a little early today, or are you just filled with so much hatred for Obama and jealousy of his accomplishments that you're incapable of coming up with a sane argument against him?

Wow, so many mistatements in that paragraph, I don't know where to begin.

The war was hardly "unprovoked". Saddam was a monster and he got what was coming to him, and his people were glad to be rid of him. He caused the deaths of over 2 million people. You like to forget about that, for some reason, and treat him like he was a clubbed baby seal.

Ghadaffy wasn't a problem for us, and all Obama did was tie us into something that wasn't our problem.

I give Obama credit for the fact the death of Bin Laden happened on his watch, although it would not have happened without the intelligence and military efforts made by his predecessor in developing the kind of forces to pull off that kind of mission.

So is that our policy now, we go to places where mass murder is taking place and stop it, indifferent of our own national interests?