You know he's right.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...ntent=facebook&utm_campaign=n-allen-west-iraq
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...ntent=facebook&utm_campaign=n-allen-west-iraq
Obama Made ‘Greatest Military Blunder World Will Ever Know’ in Iraq
- Thread starter Dawg to the Bone
- Start date
I don't understand how Obama keeps getting the blame for this. The Iraqi Government made the deal with the Bush administration for the timeline for troop withdrawal. The REAL mistake was going into Iraq in the first place. Let's look at all of the instability since we invaded Iraq. Countries currently in civil war: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen
Close to it: Egypt
And before you try to paint me as a liberal, I don't like the current President, and I served 28 months in Afghanistan as an Army officer. Allen West is an idiot IYAM
Close to it: Egypt
And before you try to paint me as a liberal, I don't like the current President, and I served 28 months in Afghanistan as an Army officer. Allen West is an idiot IYAM
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat. U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.
Nah.... I think he's running away from Iraq as fast as possible and I believe that's the right thing to do .... Quit throwing good money after bad and letting the military generals dictate foreign policy
I wish we'd not spent one red cent in Iraq, or spill one drop of red American blood there, ever again . Just not worth it
I was in the same class at CGSC with West and based on some conversations I had with him, I concur---he's nuttier than a squirrel turd. The stunt he pulled in Iraq was something you would expect from a squad leader, not a battalion commander.
What a bunch of hogwash---"The Greatest Military Blunder The World Will Ever Know"? Off the top of my head, I can think of about 30 military blunders that were more significant.
How about:
Salamis
Cannae
Carrhae
Stamford Bridge
Hastings
Agincourt
Spanish Armada
Poltava
Saratoga
Bladensburg
Napoleon's invasion of Russia
Waterloo
New Orleans, 1815
Charge of the Light Brigade
Pickett's Charge
Little Bighorn
Gallipoli
Battle of the Somme
Verdun
The Battle of France, 1940
Hitler's invasion of Russia
Stalingrad
Midway
Inchon (for the North Koreans)
MacArthur's march to the Yalu, 1950-1951
Dien Bien Phu
Bay of Pigs
Westmoreland and DePuy's "search and destroy" tactics in Vietnam
Operation Eagle Claw, 1980
Allen West is a disgraced former US Army officer. He was guilty of assault and accepted a plea bargain that allowed him to avoid a certain conviction in a court martial proceeding.
Thank you for your service Klesko. Have a few friends that served in both Iraq and Afghan. Glad you posted this. In a thread further down, when I brought this up about SOFA, I was told I didn't know what I was talking about.
Klesko, Most everyone knows that was the ideal plan, but that doesn't mean it was realistic. This is a good excuse for not trying to extend the agreement because Obama wanted to pull out. There was no real effort made and everyone knows this. Obama ran first chance he got. He said from day one that he wanted to pull all the troops out of Iraq and first chance he got he did. There was no real effort made. Period. All the military advisors and people in the know said we needed to leave a much larger force behind, but he abandoned Iraq. When Bush left Iraq, Iraq was relatively stable and the Middle East was relatively stable. Obama's actions, not Bush's caused the unrest in the Middle East. He supported the Muslim brotherhood takeover of Egypt. He attacked Libya and left it unstable and now in the hands of ISIS. What was his exit plan there? He drew the false red line in Syria and armed the rebels that are now ISIS. And he is about to give nukes to Iraq for all intents and purposes.
And I served 21 years in the US Army, 13 of it as an officer as well. Allen West is the brightest mind out there right now, IYAM and I would vote for him for president in a heartbeat. The unrest in the Middle East has been caused by Obama's lack of any real response opening the door to this takeover.
Now the rest of the story.......Allen West, an American Hero!
http://www.floppingaces.net/2015/05...he-status-of-forces-agreement/comment-page-1/
You kinda didn't. Nor does Klesko. Its a on going process...Even POSOTUS team said he blew it. So there's that.
Once we removed Saddam, a power vacuum was inevitable and our choices were going to suck regardless. We could continue to fight a war for another decade or more, with American soldiers being killed amidst ongoing secular violence between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, with no assurances that the country could ever be stabilized, or we could pull out and hope that the central government of Iraq would be strong enough to put down any terrorist insurgencies. There were no good options, only bad ones, and if we could have a do-over, we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place. That was the regrettable decision that set all of this in motion.
Saddam was a horrible dictator who was openly hostile toward the US despite our 8 years of support to him during the Iran-Iraq war. But, there would have been no reason or opportunity for ISIS to try to take over territory in Iraq if he were still in power and he would have used his million-man army to crush them if they attempted to do so. ISIS would still be in Syria, Yemen, etc. but certainly wouldn't be controlling Mosul and other major cities in Iraq.
There's a famous saying, sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. We created this quagmire throughout the entire region, noone else. The OPTEMPO that our military was having to sustain was absolutely unsustainable on both equipment and manpower. We've lost a lot of good people, not only to casualties but to folks getting out because it was extremely difficult to sustain any type of family life spending 12 months down range and even less back home just to turn around and do it again. My unit invaded Iraq in 03, went to afghanistan for 12 months in 05, came home for 9 months, then went back for 15 months. That's when I got out. They have since been back to Afghanistan 3 times since. The problem was this was common ARMY wide, guys getting burned out.
In my battalion, all of the top company grade officers and below got out when their time was up, the only ones that stayed were the shitbags who probably wouldn't succeed at anything else.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree on the status of forces agreement, but the bottom line is, the government that we installed in Iraq asked us to leave. If we decide to stay against their wishes, WTF are we doing there in the first place?
That's true, but I really don't think Saddam Hussein left us any real option. He continued to violate the truce agreement that he agreed to leaving us in the untenable position as being seen as feckless if at some point we didn't hold him accountable. He was a constant threat to his neighbors. He continued to violate the UN agreements playing a shell game with the UN inspectors. He was trying to obtain nukes. He had used WMDs on his own people, so we know he at least had chemical weapons. Given the intelligence at the time, it was the prudent call in my opinion.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree on the status of forces agreement, but the bottom line is, the government that we installed in Iraq asked us to leave. If we decide to stay against their wishes, WTF are we doing there in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Here is where I have a hard time believing that that was really the case. First of all Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq, so he really wanted to keep that campaign promise as noted by David Gergen in this CNN piece:
"If Obama was unhappy, he had a strange way of showing it. In the run-up to elections in 2012, he traversed the campaign trail celebrating the fulfillment of his promise to pull every last troop out of Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/27/opinion/gergen-katz-iraq/index.html
It seems that Al-Maliki publicly felt a need to let the Iraqis know the Americans weren't pulling the strings, but in private wanted an agreement as laid out in this brief oped:
"These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times. Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380508/no-us-troops-didnt-have-leave-iraq-patrick-brennan
And as a Washington Post editorial stated, Bush predicted this exact thing would happen:
At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. 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-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would 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.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dd91b2-374e-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html
Here is where I have a hard time believing that that was really the case. First of all Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq, so he really wanted to keep that campaign promise as noted by David Gergen in this CNN piece:
"If Obama was unhappy, he had a strange way of showing it. In the run-up to elections in 2012, he traversed the campaign trail celebrating the fulfillment of his promise to pull every last troop out of Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/27/opinion/gergen-katz-iraq/index.html
It seems that Al-Maliki publicly felt a need to let the Iraqis know the Americans weren't pulling the strings, but in private wanted an agreement as laid out in this brief oped:
"These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times. Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380508/no-us-troops-didnt-have-leave-iraq-patrick-brennan
And as a Washington Post editorial stated, Bush predicted this exact thing would happen:
At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. 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-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would 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.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dd91b2-374e-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html
Obama could have recognized the fact that pulling out was a stupid move and destined to failure. That is why he is not good for the US. He is totally incompetent .
I like how liberals and progressives always get caught up in word play, like hyperbole and ignore the substance of the argument. It's interesting.
Good list. I'm impressed. My guess is that it was meant as hyperbole. Kind of like when Clint Eastwood said that "Obama was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people." My guess is that he did not mean for someone to dig up every fraud in US history.
He is a proud graduate of the University of Tennessee!
"Allen West is the brightest mind out there right now"? And you are an Army officer? Have you ever heard of LTG H.R. McMaster? Same age as me and West but he kinda jumped over us with below the zone promotions and appointment to USAWC. McMaster has a MA and PhD in history and is on the fast track to becoming Chief of Staff or CJCS.
Last edited:
The biggest problem our entire culture has is pointing the finger of blame, and pretending the finger solves whatever problem (as we like to pretend) any pointee may have been a part of causing. Fix the blame, then return to our naps. We lead the world in this impressive tendency, one we would prefer be considered an art form.
I am speaking of conservative politicians. I am sure there are much better leaders in the military.
Here is where I have a hard time believing that that was really the case. First of all Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq, so he really wanted to keep that campaign promise as noted by David Gergen in this CNN piece:
"If Obama was unhappy, he had a strange way of showing it. In the run-up to elections in 2012, he traversed the campaign trail celebrating the fulfillment of his promise to pull every last troop out of Iraq."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/27/opinion/gergen-katz-iraq/index.html
It seems that Al-Maliki publicly felt a need to let the Iraqis know the Americans weren't pulling the strings, but in private wanted an agreement as laid out in this brief oped:
"These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.” That contradicts the reporting that’s been done on the issue by well-known neocon propaganda factories The New Yorker and the New York Times. Prime Minister Maliki did say in public, at times, that he personally couldn’t offer the guarantees necessary to keep U.S. troops in the country, but it’s well-established that behind closed doors, he was interested in a substantial U.S. presence. The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it: For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380508/no-us-troops-didnt-have-leave-iraq-patrick-brennan
And as a Washington Post editorial stated, Bush predicted this exact thing would happen:
At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. 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-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would 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.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...dd91b2-374e-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html
[/QUOTE]
The Bush administration also predicted that we would be welcomed as liberators with open arms, and would need 40,000 troops post invasion. Whoops.
Allen west as the brightest mind out there? I can't fathom how you believe this...
If you want a smart military guy what about this guy.... I've heard him speak. Much brighter than Allen west IMHO
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=James_L._Jones
The Bush administration also predicted that we would be welcomed as liberators with open arms, and would need 40,000 troops post invasion. Whoops.[/QUOTE]
So what? Many Iraqis did welcome the US as liberators. Of course many were afraid of reprisals from Hussein supporters and former military leaders. Apparently you forget the celebrations in the street that occurred in many places. Everyone including Bush knew winning the peace would not be easy. All you can do is base you decisions on troop strength on what your military experts tell you, if you listen to them, something this president (the smartest man in the room) has been reluctant or refused to do.
Bush sure as hell nailed the opinion above. Obama policy has left a path of radical islamists from Libya in North Africa all the way to Pakistan, down into Africa and the Arabia peninsula. Iran has played him like a fool. As has Putin. As has China. He is a laughingstock on the world stage.
So what? Many Iraqis did welcome the US as liberators. Of course many were afraid of reprisals from Hussein supporters and former military leaders. Apparently you forget the celebrations in the street that occurred in many places. Everyone including Bush knew winning the peace would not be easy. All you can do is base you decisions on troop strength on what your military experts tell you, if you listen to them, something this president (the smartest man in the room) has been reluctant or refused to do.
Bush sure as hell nailed the opinion above. Obama policy has left a path of radical islamists from Libya in North Africa all the way to Pakistan, down into Africa and the Arabia peninsula. Iran has played him like a fool. As has Putin. As has China. He is a laughingstock on the world stage.[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked, the chief of staff of the army recommended sending 200,000 troops post invasion and was relieved of command for doing so, the White House kept pushing the asinine stance that it would be a short mission with 40,000 troops.
My whole point is we should never have been there, I even said the same in 02/03. I used to argue on here with folks about it.
In Afghanistan, they always welcome us as their best friends, and shoot at us minutes later.
Last time I checked, the chief of staff of the army recommended sending 200,000 troops post invasion and was relieved of command for doing so, the White House kept pushing the asinine stance that it would be a short mission with 40,000 troops.
My whole point is we should never have been there, I even said the same in 02/03. I used to argue on here with folks about it.
In Afghanistan, they always welcome us as their best friends, and shoot at us minutes later.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. These things are always complex. There are no absolutes, in my opinion.
Fair enough. These things are always complex. There are no absolutes, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I actually quit reading the chat back then because having a contrary opinion to the Hawks on here had them calling me a liberal coward and idiot, yet I still enlisted post invasion even though I was intellectually and morally against the war in Iraq. I had no qualms with Afghanistan.
I actually challenged one poster that if he felt so strongly about the invasion to go enlist, he couldn't because he had a family.
Anyway, glad we can have a civil conversation now. This clip sums up my thoughts
I actually quit reading the chat back then because having a contrary opinion to the Hawks on here had them calling me a liberal coward and idiot, yet I still enlisted post invasion even though I was intellectually and morally against the war in Iraq. I had no qualms with Afghanistan.
I actually challenged one poster that if he felt so strongly about the invasion to go enlist, he couldn't because he had a family.
Anyway, glad we can have a civil conversation now. This clip sums up my thoughts[/QUOTE]
Feel the same way about everything you've said. But another question for you. (loaded) Do you think it's time to re-instate the draft? I was watching CSPAN and Dempsey testifying before some committee about a month ago. While they were pressing him with more troops in Iraq and elsewhere, he finally said "If you want more troops, you are going to have to have a draft. Our troops are weary after 14 yrs and 2 wars. There is no way we can fight everywhere that's being mentioned, not to mention, because of sequestration, we don't have the money." A MOUTHFUL. Didn't get much press.
In some ways, I think it would be good. Not just because most calling for more troops have no skin in the game, but because young people today need to grow up. Give them a purpose AND a job. ( I sound like my parents...lol) Somehow, there wouldn't be so many deferments this time around either. Such as if you're going to college, great........but you'd have to have some kind of service related job/volunteer hours too........like Nat Guard or teaching/mentoring or volunteer hours at health clinics, animal shelters, etc. Just something to "earn" your deferment. After all, others are risking their lives, missing holidays, missing families, etc. so you can go to school.
Feel the same way about everything you've said. But another question for you. (loaded) Do you think it's time to re-instate the draft? I was watching CSPAN and Dempsey testifying before some committee about a month ago. While they were pressing him with more troops in Iraq and elsewhere, he finally said "If you want more troops, you are going to have to have a draft. Our troops are weary after 14 yrs and 2 wars. There is no way we can fight everywhere that's being mentioned, not to mention, because of sequestration, we don't have the money." A MOUTHFUL. Didn't get much press.
In some ways, I think it would be good. Not just because most calling for more troops have no skin in the game, but because young people today need to grow up. Give them a purpose AND a job. ( I sound like my parents...lol) Somehow, there wouldn't be so many deferments this time around either. Such as if you're going to college, great........but you'd have to have some kind of service related job/volunteer hours too........like Nat Guard or teaching/mentoring or volunteer hours at health clinics, animal shelters, etc. Just something to "earn" your deferment. After all, others are risking their lives, missing holidays, missing families, etc. so you can go to school.[/QUOTE]
Do I think military service is a good thing for most young people? Yes
Do we need a draft? No, and heres why. An all volunteer military works because folks are motivated and believe in what they are doing. You have to be able to execute a command within seconds of receiving it from your NCO's/officers, there is no time to think about nor debate, you must act right away. If you have Soldiers who do not want to be there in the first place, orders are not as likely to be followed in my opinion. We weed guys out during all phases of service for multiple issues, if you can't cut it you are out. If you don't want to be here you are out. Why would a draftee keep himself in shape to be able to pass a physical fitness test or maintain height and weight standards? It only works on a volunteer army because they kick you out if you don't. The draftee probably wants out anyway. Just my thoughts.
Do I think military service is a good thing for most young people? Yes
Do we need a draft? No, and heres why. An all volunteer military works because folks are motivated and believe in what they are doing. You have to be able to execute a command within seconds of receiving it from your NCO's/officers, there is no time to think about nor debate, you must act right away. If you have Soldiers who do not want to be there in the first place, orders are not as likely to be followed in my opinion. We weed guys out during all phases of service for multiple issues, if you can't cut it you are out. If you don't want to be here you are out. Why would a draftee keep himself in shape to be able to pass a physical fitness test or maintain height and weight standards? It only works on a volunteer army because they kick you out if you don't. The draftee probably wants out anyway. Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
I pretty much agree on the draft. That is one reason I have some reservation about allowing illegals to earn citizenship by serving. On one hand it seems a good way to earn legitimacy as a future United States citizen on the other hand I wonder how hard they will really try and can they be depended on when the times get rough.
I do get a little concerned that the more distant everyone is from a draft, the easier it is to 1), go to war and 2) disrespect and make fun of soldiers who serve.
I pretty much agree on the draft. That is one reason I have some reservation about allowing illegals to earn citizenship by serving. On one hand it seems a good way to earn legitimacy as a future United States citizen on the other hand I wonder how hard they will really try and can they be depended on when the times get rough.
I do get a little concerned that the more distant everyone is from a draft, the easier it is to 1), go to war and 2) disrespect and make fun of soldiers who serve.[/QUOTE]
I had a couple of excellent immigrants in my platoon, one was dominican, another was el salvadoran, both excellent Soldiers.
Do I think military service is a good thing for most young people? Yes
Do we need a draft? No, and heres why. An all volunteer military works because folks are motivated and believe in what they are doing. You have to be able to execute a command within seconds of receiving it from your NCO's/officers, there is no time to think about nor debate, you must act right away. If you have Soldiers who do not want to be there in the first place, orders are not as likely to be followed in my opinion. We weed guys out during all phases of service for multiple issues, if you can't cut it you are out. If you don't want to be here you are out. Why would a draftee keep himself in shape to be able to pass a physical fitness test or maintain height and weight standards? It only works on a volunteer army because they kick you out if you don't. The draftee probably wants out anyway. Just my thoughts.[/QUOTE]
Agree with you, especially with this generation I guess. I'm old enough to remember 3 cousins going off to Nam. It was what it was, it was what they were SUPPOSED to do whether they wanted to be there or not. One got all kinds of medals for his heroics. Saved 15 of his troops while taking shots himself. But maybe because I was young, I just don't remember any of them having an attitude of, no I'm not going......it was more "their duty" for their country. So again, guess you're right with the attitudes of this generation those times and feelings are long gone.
But suspect, it might be quietly talked about in DC among the Congress, Joint Chiefs, etc.
The biggest problem with the US Army is the quality of our senior leaders. We need generals who have the courage to tell civilian leaders, "Sir, no sir!" when given an unreasonable or incoherent mission or less than the absolute minimum resources to accomplish the mission.
Similar threads
