During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end.
The exit
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
That article confirms my argument: 1) ISIS grew out of the withdrawal 2) A residual force would likely have prevented it's rise 3) That Obama's hands were not in fact "tied" as he could have continued to negotiate with Maliki (who was willing to keep troops) and the parliament (which was not) if he actually wanted troops to remain (which he didn't) 4) Obama chose to keep a campaign promise over national security
Lastly...Obama has 5000 troops in Iraq right now without an existing SOFA. A marine just died there last week. If he wanted 5000 more troops to reach the magic number of 10000 he could have had them instantly. Nothing could have stopped him if he actually cared. Instead there are 5000 troops and genocide. Too little too late.
So you would be willing to keep American troops there or send more troops or send your family members off to fend off the bad guys ...
Yes, yes, and yes.
Good at least you have the guts to say you want more death more wars I commend you !
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the .
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
That article confirms my argument: 1) ISIS grew out of the withdrawal 2) A residual force would likely have prevented it's rise 3) That Obama's hands were not in fact "tied" as he could have continued to negotiate with Maliki (who was willing to keep troops) and the parliament (which was not) if he actually wanted troops to remain (which he didn't) 4) Obama chose to keep a campaign promise over national security
Lastly...Obama has 5000 troops in Iraq right now without an existing SOFA. A marine just died there last week. If he wanted 5000 more troops to reach the magic number of 10000 he could have had them instantly. Nothing could have stopped him if he actually cared. Instead there are 5000 troops and genocide. Too little too late.
Then take your ass and all your family and fight. Add your money for weapons and munitions. If you aren't willing to do that then stfu. Stop promoting sending others to die and others money to pay for it!
Oh? I should just "stfu"? Is that how democracy works now? Sign of a lost argument right there.
I just paid a shit load in federal taxes and my nephew is in the military and I grew up in a military family. So if you volunteer my money and sacrifice my blood for your foolish positions then you'll get my position on your SHIT opinions. You aren't part of my democracy. Lobby your country to finish the job.
During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State.
A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning.
"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.)
The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end.
The exit
When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011.
It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind.
Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010.
He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen.
When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.)
Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call.
Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime.
Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement.
The aftermath
So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.)
"I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political."
Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament.
"They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said.
Our ruling
Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress."
Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted.
Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place.
That article confirms my argument: 1) ISIS grew out of the withdrawal 2) A residual force would likely have prevented it's rise 3) That Obama's hands were not in fact "tied" as he could have continued to negotiate with Maliki (who was willing to keep troops) and the parliament (which was not) if he actually wanted troops to remain (which he didn't) 4) Obama chose to keep a campaign promise over national security
Lastly...Obama has 5000 troops in Iraq right now without an existing SOFA. A marine just died there last week. If he wanted 5000 more troops to reach the magic number of 10000 he could have had them instantly. Nothing could have stopped him if he actually cared. Instead there are 5000 troops and genocide. Too little too late.
this isn't an american problem anymore. the anti war movement, which i was a part of, along with france and the rest of the countrie
iraq has had 13 years to figure this shit out.
i don't want another american to die and i don't want to waste another american dollar on this.
you can be my guest though. i can put you in touch with a marine recruiter guy i know.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
So the president is championing the refugees in an interview yesterday.He seems so out of touch with what the public opinion is on that matter.
please post a link.
refugees are running away from terror, seeking refuge. they deserve assistance, the least of which being "championed".
i would like to read the interview to see if i can figure out exactly what it is you are taking issue with. i am sure others would like to see as well. it is probably just the fact that obama said anything at all...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
So the president is championing the refugees in an interview yesterday.He seems so out of touch with what the public opinion is on that matter.
Perhaps he is living his faith...
When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. (Leviticus 19:33-34)
Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt. (Exodus 23:9)
Those surveys always crack me up. They mean as much as a fart in the wind. It's always a great idea till they start be placed in your neighborhood, then the for sale signs go up, then before you know it there goes the neighborhood....We have all seen it even though most of you won't even dare admit it.
Thank God for big Deep Oceans....Europe is so fucked, it's a real shame. $ should be as far as we should go for the obvious reasons
So the president is championing the refugees in an interview yesterday.He seems so out of touch with what the public opinion is on that matter.
please post a link.
refugees are running away from terror, seeking refuge. they deserve assistance, the least of which being "championed".
i would like to read the interview to see if i can figure out exactly what it is you are taking issue with. i am sure others would like to see as well. it is probably just the fact that obama said anything at all...
Those surveys always crack me up. They mean as much as a fart in the wind. It's always a great idea till they start be placed in your neighborhood, then the for sale signs go up, then before you know it there goes the neighborhood....We have all seen it even though most of you won't even dare admit it.
Thank God for big Deep Oceans....Europe is so fucked, it's a real shame. $ should be as far as we should go for the obvious reasons
You're referring to a Not in My Backyard response, which you might see in different instances. I'm not sure if you're seeing it with refugees in the U.S. or not. I posted the link because rr said he's out of touch with public opinion.
Those surveys always crack me up. They mean as much as a fart in the wind. It's always a great idea till they start be placed in your neighborhood, then the for sale signs go up, then before you know it there goes the neighborhood....We have all seen it even though most of you won't even dare admit it.
Thank God for big Deep Oceans....Europe is so fucked, it's a real shame. $ should be as far as we should go for the obvious reasons
Forgot, which day did god create oceans? I mean it's zombie Jesus day so trying to get it all straight. Third day?
Those surveys always crack me up. They mean as much as a fart in the wind. It's always a great idea till they start be placed in your neighborhood, then the for sale signs go up, then before you know it there goes the neighborhood....We have all seen it even though most of you won't even dare admit it.
Thank God for big Deep Oceans....Europe is so fucked, it's a real shame. $ should be as far as we should go for the obvious reasons
Forgot, which day did god create oceans? I mean it's zombie Jesus day so trying to get it all straight. Third day?
Those surveys always crack me up. They mean as much as a fart in the wind. It's always a great idea till they start be placed in your neighborhood, then the for sale signs go up, then before you know it there goes the neighborhood....We have all seen it even though most of you won't even dare admit it.
Thank God for big Deep Oceans....Europe is so fucked, it's a real shame. $ should be as far as we should go for the obvious reasons
Forgot, which day did god create oceans? I mean it's zombie Jesus day so trying to get it all straight. Third day?
Easy there. No reason to insult anyone's beliefs.
How can it be insulting if people truly believe this? And Musky brought up Gods creating deep oceans to protect us from Muslims that ironically were created by guess who.............God!
Soooooo it's pretty fkn funny with a little sadness thrown in.
And if someone says stupid shit about other subjects it's fair game. What gives?
Oh oh oh it's on topic cause all this god foolishness on both sides is used as the reason for violence. Terrorists have their God and Musky his.
I hear you.. I'm really not trying to be on a soapbox, I just never think it's good form to attack an entire group of people (Christians, Muslims, Jews) in a response to someone doing the same. That's all.
Who knows whether the CIA plan could have worked but clearly there was Patreaus/Clinton on one side of argument and Obama on the other side.
This isn't the first Cock block this admin has done in determining a strategic plan for that region.Many of Obamas descisions have been down right horrible.Thanks for posting that.Just another example of ineptitude.
Who knows whether the CIA plan could have worked but clearly there was Patreaus/Clinton on one side of argument and Obama on the other side.
This isn't the first Cock block this admin has done in determining a strategic plan for that region.Many of Obamas descisions have been down right horrible.Thanks for posting that.Just another example of ineptitude.
If any of the decisions more favorable would be to send more troops take your sons down and sign them up to marines and army. Sorry RR but this sending Americans in to protect big oil recourses is total bull shit. If Middle East cares about their area they need to fight and resolve their issues.
Realize I sound like a broken record but I will continue my banter when I hear of sending in more troops or it's Obama's fault religious sects don't get along. Hey and all these threads about Muslims not stepping up. Well why the fk are we there. And we are subsidizing the fuckin chinese by keeping oil flowing. That's fked up. They can send troops to stabilize.
Comments
iraq has had 13 years to figure this shit out.
i don't want another american to die and i don't want to waste another american dollar on this.
you can be my guest though. i can put you in touch with a marine recruiter guy i know.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
refugees are running away from terror, seeking refuge. they deserve assistance, the least of which being "championed".
i would like to read the interview to see if i can figure out exactly what it is you are taking issue with. i am sure others would like to see as well. it is probably just the fact that obama said anything at all...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. (Leviticus 19:33-34)
Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt. (Exodus 23:9)
people-press.org/2015/09/29/mixed-views-of-initial-u-s-response-to-europes-migrant-crisis/
Thank God for big Deep Oceans....Europe is so fucked, it's a real shame. $ should be as far as we should go for the obvious reasons
SHOW COUNT: (159) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=103, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=2, Australia=2
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
Upcoming: Aucklandx2, Gold Coast, Melbournex2
Soooooo it's pretty fkn funny with a little sadness thrown in.
And if someone says stupid shit about other subjects it's fair game. What gives?
peace.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-nixed-cia-plan-could-have-stopped-isis-officials-n549111
Who knows whether the CIA plan could have worked but clearly there was Patreaus/Clinton on one side of argument and Obama on the other side.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/03/intel-analysts-we-were-punished-for-telling-the-truth-about-obama-s-isis-war.html
Cooking the books on intelligence and forcing out dissenters to support policy
Realize I sound like a broken record but I will continue my banter when I hear of sending in more troops or it's Obama's fault religious sects don't get along. Hey and all these threads about Muslims not stepping up. Well why the fk are we there. And we are subsidizing the fuckin chinese by keeping oil flowing. That's fked up. They can send troops to stabilize.