Obama Signs Ten Years Plus Sofa Deal With Afghans - Shows Bush How Iraq Shoulda Been Done.

[TooTall]

Mission accomplished. Time to get the hell out of Afghanistan. And it's also time to withdraw from the Middle East as well. We don't belong in those lands. It's time to scale back and adopt a humble Non-Intervention Foreign Policy. Time to end this state of Permanent War the Globalist Elites have us stuck in.

Signing a ten year SOFA to stay in Afghanistan does just the opposite of what you just posted.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OS 9902540 regarding NF 9902232, SB 9901046.

.
Well, other than the billions of dollars that we give them in aid each year and which they can't get along without...

The Iraqis send more money to the US buying weapons than they take in US aid.

. The Pentagon confirmed that this fiscal year, the United States has finalized $1.6 billion in arms sales to Iraq, placing the country in an elite club of weapons buyers. ... According to data obtained by Salon from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency at the Pentagon, which manages the arms sales, the military has alerted Congress to up to $4.3 billion in arms sales that have been under discussion since at least 2006 between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.

Guns not roses for Iraq - Salon.com

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OS 9902549

Since it's obvious that Barry really didn't try very hard to negotiate a new Status of Forces Agreement, his supporters are now left to argue that it was "impossible" to do so!

The argument that a new SOFA was possible for 2012 and beyond is the weaker and mist improbable outcome for several reasons.

The first being Bush setting the precedent in 2008 by agreeing that Iraq was ready to go it alone without US troops after 2011.

Why a 2012 deadline? Why agree to have all troops pull out of cities by June 2009?

Had Bush negotiated a ten year deal back in 2008 then you conservatives would be believing ISIS doesn't invade Iraq in 2014. So that is what you are doing. Trying to cover Bush's weaknesses in the war he stupidly started by shifting blame to Obama.

Obama got a ten year deal in a Afghanistan by the way. Bush failed to do that in Iraq.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

GS 9892612.

No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

I guess this is more lies as well, right?

.

From your link:

As an aside, I won’t quibble much with the very first claim he makes in the above video, that ISIS is more or less a creation of the invasion of Iraq. In an important sense, this is true, and therefore one can argue the single most consequential decision that brought us to today’s deplorable situation is the decision to invade Iraq.

So RetiredGySgt do you agree that "ISIS is more or less a creation of the invasion of Iraq." And " In an important sense, this is true, and therefore one can argue the single most consequential decision that brought us to today’s deplorable situation is the decision to invade Iraq.?

Do you agree with the author who wrote that?

 

[dilloduck]

So if Obama was so skilled he could negotiate a stay behind agreement in Afghanistan, how come he couldn't do the same in Iraq?
Oops.

He could have--just ask Panetta

 

[whutTHEYsay]

DT 9892470 regarding NF 9891940

Shows us he's "learned" from his mistakes.

Obama didn't pull troops out of Iraq any faster than the hard fixed deadline set by Bush. So if that was a mistake, it was another one of Bush's mistakes.

You certainly must mean Obama learned from Bush's many mistakes.

Besides keeping the massive use of force available out of Afghanistan, Bush pulled troops, equipment and intelligence assets out of Afghanistan toward the end of 2002 to to join the upcoming thrilling military adventure into Iraq by March.

Here's a good summary of that mistake to put Afghanistan on the back burner by Bush:

Step by step through 2002 America's war on terror became little more than its preparation for war in Iraq.

Because of that shift, the United States succeeded in removing Saddam Hussein, but at this cost: The first front in the war on terror, Afghanistan, was left to fester, as attention and money were drained toward Iraq. This in turn left more havens in Afghanistan in which terrorist groups could reconstitute themselves; a resurgent opium-poppy economy to finance them; and more of the disorder and brutality the United States had hoped to eliminate. Whether or not the strong international alliance that began the assault on the Taliban might have brought real order to Afghanistan is impossible to say. It never had the chance, because America's premature withdrawal soon fractured the alliance and curtailed postwar reconstruction. Indeed, the campaign in Afghanistan was warped and limited from the start, by a pre-existing desire to save troops for Iraq.

Bush s Lost Year



Why don't you cons condemn Bush for not keeping enough troops in Afghanistan to really crush the Taliban in 2003 and really eliminate them?

 

[deltex1]

The slug Obabble has been in Afghanistan the last 6 years...but then we had no expectation there. I have one word for ya Foo....Panetta. Call Psaki and get some talking points...like" the situation on the ground at the time would not allow".

 

[DigitalDrifter]

After Obama's premature exit of Iraq, Afghanistan was probably eager to sign a long term deal.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

If you want to see a Commander in Chief removing military assets and troops from an unfinished war that he started - take a look at these.

March 2002: US Military Pulls Elite Special Operations Group from Afghanistan and Redeploys Them to Iraq

Fifth Group Special Forces—an elite group whose members speak Arabic, Pashtun, and Dari—is pulled from its mission in Afghanistan and sent to Iraq where the group is assigned the task of locating Saddam Hussein. Members of Fifth Group, who spent six months developing a network of local sources and alliances and who believe they were close to finding Osama bin Laden, are upset with the orders. “We were going nuts on the ground about that decision,” one of them will later recall. [GUARDIAN, 3/26/2004] They are replaced by the Seventh Group Special Forces, who are Spanish speakers experienced mostly in Latin America. They have no local rapport or knowledge. [GUARDIAN, 3/26/2004; NEWSWEEK, 8/28/2007] They are also replaced by the Third Group Special Forces, which is trained to operate in sub-Saharan Africa. They speak French and various African languages. [PBS FRONTLINE, 6/20/2006]

War in Afghanistan US Redirection of Forces to Iraq

 

[Mad Scientist]

10 more years of guaranteed Heroin Trade.

Thanks Obama!

Thanks Veterans!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

OS039 9893046

You Obama supporters know damn well that if Barry had REALLY wanted a new Stay of Forces agreement with Iraq then he could have gotten one!

How could we know that Oldstyle, if you have no way of knowing that? And I have cited General Petraeus who may not know more than EconChick about Iraq but he surely knows more than you do. And Petraeus said we have no way of knowing what you are claiming to know. How can you seriously believe that you know "that if Barry had REALLY wanted a new Stay of Forces agreement with Iraq then he could have gotten one." It was entirely up to the Iraqis no matter what Obama or Bush or Petraeus wanted or didn't want. You cannot escape that reality unless you refuse to believe in reality.


I guess you think this statement is rational?

Apr. 21, 2003 George W. Bush stated the following in a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate : "On Mar. 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Iraq Statements by US President George W. Bush - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

Here is where Bush's disturbed irrational thinking is very obvious:

I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area.

There was no threat to peace and security in the area in March 2003 with 200 UN inspectors inside Iraq finding the best cooperation from Iraq they had ever seen.

Bush's invasion destroyed that peace and lives he did not 'restore' it.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

DT025 9892470 regarding NF 9891940

Shows us he's "learned" from his mistakes.

NF086 9906304

Obama didn't pull troops out of Iraq any faster than the hard fixed deadline set by Bush.

DT087 9906421

The slug Obabble has been in Afghanistan the last 6 years...but then we had no expectation there. I have one word for ya Foo....Panetta. Call Psaki and get some talking points...like" the situation on the ground at the time would not allow". "

In your post #026 Deltex you insist without making the case that Obama has made some 'mistakes'. I pointed out that Obama made no mistake in Iraq because Obama didn't pull troops out any faster than the hard fixed deadline that was set by Bush. The only reply from you on that is to state that Obama has been in Afghanistan the last six years. Keen sense of the obvious you have but what does that have to do with what I wrote? Panetta cannot change the fact that Bush set the deadline for all troops to be gone and Panetta has no control over Iraq's legislature where the politicians held fast to the issue that prevented any troops from staying in Iraq after the Bush/Maliki deadline arrived.

 

[deltex1]

DT025 9892470 regarding NF 9891940

Shows us he's "learned" from his mistakes.

NF086 9906304

Obama didn't pull troops out of Iraq any faster than the hard fixed deadline set by Bush.

DT087 9906421

The slug Obabble has been in Afghanistan the last 6 years...but then we had no expectation there. I have one word for ya Foo....Panetta. Call Psaki and get some talking points...like" the situation on the ground at the time would not allow". "

In your post #026 Deltex you insist without making the case that Obama has made some 'mistakes'. I pointed out that Obama made no mistake in Iraq because Obama didn't pull troops out any faster than the hard fixed deadline that was set by Bush. The only reply from you on that is to state that Obama has been in Afghanistan the last six years. Keen sense of the obvious you have but what does that have to do with what I wrote? Panetta cannot change the fact that Bush set the deadline for all troops to be gone and Panetta has no control over Iraq's legislature where the politicians held fast to the issue that prevented any troops from staying in Iraq after the Bush/Maliki deadline arrived.

We all know what Obabble could have negotiated had he wanted to. Panetta says so. Jack Keane says so. Other generals say so. Obabble low balled the number of troops he was willing to leave giving maliki no bargainIng power with his legislature. Seeing the situation he was in maliki countered with the demand for legal jurisdiction over U.S. forces. Obabble got his issue that would cover his withdrawal. And so now we have the current mess.

You insist on whining about bush in Afghanistan...all I am doing is pointing out that whatever problems bush did not solve, are still there.

 

[paulitician]

Time to plunder Afghanistan's natural resources. It's the only reason the Ruling-Class Globalist Elites have us stuck there. We should have ended this 'Longest War' a long time ago. But there's a whole lotta cash to be made. That's why Obama is keeping us there for a long long time. Americans need to become better-informed. Because it's they who are forced to pay for all these Interventions/Wars.

 

[1776]

The OP is a typical shit-eating liberal.

Obama fucked up in Iraq by pulling all US troops out then bragging about it to terrorists across the region.

He couldn't replicate that in Afghanistan if he is going to "try" to look like he is fighting his old Islamic buddies.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

DT 9908119 regarding DT087 9906421, DT025 9892470:

We all know what Obabble could have negotiated had he wanted to. Panetta says so. Jack Keane says so. Other generals say so. Obabble low balled the number of troops he was willing to leave giving maliki no bargainIng power with his legislature. Seeing the situation he was in maliki countered with the demand for legal jurisdiction over U.S. forces. Obabble got his issue that would cover his withdrawal. And so now we have the current mess.

You insist on whining about bush in Afghanistan...all I am doing is pointing out that whatever problems bush did not solve, are still there.

Panetta 'says so'????? Where?????.

Do you or Panetta, have a timeline of Iraqi legislative opposition to a new SOFA for 2012 that is related to how many US troops were to be involved?

It makes more sense to speculate that legislative opposition to granting immunity would produce a tougher sell for Maliki for thirty thousand troops rather than an easier sell for 3000.

 

[deltex1]

DT 9908119 regarding DT087 9906421, DT025 9892470:

We all know what Obabble could have negotiated had he wanted to. Panetta says so. Jack Keane says so. Other generals say so. Obabble low balled the number of troops he was willing to leave giving maliki no bargainIng power with his legislature. Seeing the situation he was in maliki countered with the demand for legal jurisdiction over U.S. forces. Obabble got his issue that would cover his withdrawal. And so now we have the current mess.

You insist on whining about bush in Afghanistan...all I am doing is pointing out that whatever problems bush did not solve, are still there.

Panetta 'says so'????? Where?????.

Do you or Panetta, have a timeline of Iraqi legislative opposition to a new SOFA for 2012 that is related to how many US troops were to be involved?

It makes more sense to speculate that legislative opposition to granting immunity would produce a tougher sell for Maliki for thirty thousand troops rather than an easier sell for 3000.

If you listened to anything but your own voice, you would know the answer to that. How is the unprecedented coalition doing at Kobani, Foo...or is that to recent for you to judge?

 

[deltex1]

GS 9892612.

No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

I guess this is more lies as well, right?

.

From your link:

As an aside, I won’t quibble much with the very first claim he makes in the above video, that ISIS is more or less a creation of the invasion of Iraq. In an important sense, this is true, and therefore one can argue the single most consequential decision that brought us to today’s deplorable situation is the decision to invade Iraq.

So RetiredGySgt do you agree that "ISIS is more or less a creation of the invasion of Iraq." And " In an important sense, this is true, and therefore one can argue the single most consequential decision that brought us to today’s deplorable situation is the decision to invade Iraq.?

Do you agree with the author who wrote that?

How about the decision not to arm the moderate rebels in Syria foo...or is that to recent for you to judge?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The ten year SOFA with Afghanistan was signed yesterday - keeping 10 thousand US troops there through 2024.

No placeholder bullcrap going on there.

It follows the historic first democratic transfer of governmental power in Afghanistan's long war torn history.

Our troops along with those of the ISAF and the vast majority of Afghans made this historic achievement possible.

Politically here in the US how will the SOFA and the transfer of power be mocked and torn apart?

So where is the praise for Obama getting a long term SOFA deal with the new Afghan government?

wait , let me get this straight. Suddenly you liberals are SUPPORTING a full time US military presence in the Middle East for at least the next 10 years? Are you ******* kidding me?

 

[TooTall]

DT 9908119 regarding DT087 9906421, DT025 9892470:

We all know what Obabble could have negotiated had he wanted to. Panetta says so. Jack Keane says so. Other generals say so. Obabble low balled the number of troops he was willing to leave giving maliki no bargainIng power with his legislature. Seeing the situation he was in maliki countered with the demand for legal jurisdiction over U.S. forces. Obabble got his issue that would cover his withdrawal. And so now we have the current mess.

You insist on whining about bush in Afghanistan...all I am doing is pointing out that whatever problems bush did not solve, are still there.

Panetta 'says so'????? Where?????.

Do you or Panetta, have a timeline of Iraqi legislative opposition to a new SOFA for 2012 that is related to how many US troops were to be involved?

It makes more sense to speculate that legislative opposition to granting immunity would produce a tougher sell for Maliki for thirty thousand troops rather than an easier sell for 3000.

Panetta says that and a lot more here.

A book excerpt in Time Magazine Thursday recounts the internal battles over the timing of the withdrawal of U.S troops from Iraq and whether a residual force would remain. Panetta and other Pentagon officials argued for keeping that force.

“My fear, as I voiced to the President and others,” Panetta writes, “was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S.” He adds that his stance “reflected not just my views but also those of the military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs.”

Then, particularly damaging as the nation struggles with the Islamic State and a destabilized region, Panetta suggests Obama’s team put political promises before good foreign policy.

“But the President’s team at the White House pushed back, ” he recalls, “and the differences occasionally became heated. [Undersecretary of Defense Michele] Flournoy argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.”

The White House, Panetta writes, “coordinated the negotiations but never led them. . . but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away.”