Obama loses Iraq to Iran [Reader Post]

Loading

This is an epic Obama failure masked as a fulfilled campaign pledge.

The US suffered a major diplomatic and military rebuff on Friday when Iraq finally rejected its pleas to maintain bases in the country beyond this year.

Barack Obama announced at a White House press conference that all American troops will leave Iraq by the end of December, a decision forced by the final collapse of lengthy talks between the US and the Iraqi government on the issue.

The Iraqi decision is a boost to Iran, which has close ties with many members of the Iraqi government and which had been battling against the establishment of permanent American bases.

Obama told America not to look behind the curtain:

Obama attempted to make the most of it by presenting the withdrawal as the fulfilment of one of his election promises.

“Today I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” he told reporters.

But he had already announced this earlier this year, and the real significance today was in the failure of Obama, in spite of the cost to the US in dollars and deaths, to persuade the Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki to allow one or more American bases to be kept in the country.

Obama has set the stage for Iranian dominance.

The Pentagon had wanted the bases to help counter growing Iranian influence in the Middle East. Just a few years ago, the US had plans for leaving behind four large bases but, in the face of Iraqi resistance, this plan had to be scaled down this year to a force of 10,000. But even this proved too much for the Iraqis.

This is not a little failure. This is a gigantic failure. Worst of all, it squanders the sacrifice made by so many in the US military.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
44 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There is millions of dollars of equipment that we will never get out in time. I am afraid for my Iraqi friends who helped us durining those difficult days of late 2004-2006. We as a country have a tremendous economic and strategic interest in Iraq especially with the uncertainties in Saudi Aribia. Where are we now sending troops? Oh, yes, to protect George Soro’s interests in Africa.

The Iraqi decision is a boost to Iran, which has close ties with many members of the Iraqi government and which had been battling against the establishment of permanent American bases.

If the Iraqi government wants to cozy up to Iran and you don’t like it, it would appear you, Dr. John, have a problem with a Democratically elected government. Do you oppose the will of the people being exercised via a democratically elected government?

Obama and Hillary stated “make no mistake about it! We will continue to back Iraq. Now this of course I’m sure went over big time in Iran! That is I’m assuming laughter is allowed in Islamic societies so as such, the “forceful” statements from the Clown in chief and his spokesperson must surely be considered as comedy at it’s best over there. After all, Iran considers Hilary as a big NOTHING! She is a woman after all! And one can be sure Obama is nothing more than another target on the dart board, ass end sticking out for the bulls’ eye!

Dr. John, not only are you spot on, but we already have the following from the AP!

(AP) …(transitional government leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil) laid out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying Islamic Sharia law would be the “basic source” of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing guns in the air, but rather to chant “Allahu Akbar,” or God is Great. He then stepped aside from the podium and knelt to offer a brief prayer of thanks.

Wanna bet he was looking at a picture of Obama when he offered his prayer? Failure is to weak of a word. The only thing that comes close is CLUSTERF….! The Anti-Semite in the White House along with his cronies are accomplishing their true goal! Israel is being thrown to the dogs, now almost completely surrounded by the people who want them eradicated! Let’s not forget the demonstrators here either, all who seem to be chanting Death to Israel! It’s only going to get worse as the lip service being paid to Syria is just that.

Personally, I don’t think that Iraq is going to turn anti-US even tho they end up with a relationship with their neighboring Iran. But two observations…

As ChurchSox noted on Curt’s thread, it was never the intention of the Bush admin, or the OIF mission, to have permanent bases in Iraq. Tho the lib/progs desperately tried to convince the world it was an objective for political reasons – and Iraq publications used that false charge to light up animosity against the US Coalition forces – it was flatly denied by officials… even in the heat of the 2006 escalation of violence prior to the Surge.

Even the liberal Salon was quoting officials denial of permanent bases back in 2006.

Unfortunately, there’s a problem here. American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words “permanent,” “bases” and “Iraq” should never be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in fact, not even in the same news report. While a LexisNexis search of the last 90 days of press coverage of Iraq produced a number of examples of the use of those three words in the British press, the only U.S. examples that could be found occurred when 80 percent of Iraqis (obviously somewhat unhinged by their difficult lives) insisted in a poll that the United States might indeed desire to establish bases and remain permanently in their country; or when “no” or “not” was added to the mix via any American official denial. (It’s strange, isn’t it, that such bases, imposing as they are, generally only exist in our papers in the negative.) Three examples will do:

The secretary of defense: “During a visit with U.S. troops in Fallujah on Christmas Day, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said ‘at the moment there are no plans for permanent bases’ in Iraq. ‘It is a subject that has not even been discussed with the Iraqi government.’”

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmett, the Central Command deputy commander for planning and strategy in Iraq: “We already have handed over significant chunks of territory to the Iraqis. Those are not simply plans to do so; they are being executed right now. It is not only our plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases in Iraq.”

Karen Hughes on “The Charlie Rose Show”: “CHARLIE ROSE: They think we are still there for the oil, or they think the United States wants permanent bases. Does the United States want permanent bases in Iraq? KAREN HUGHES: We want nothing more than to bring our men and women in uniform home. As soon as possible, but not before they finish the job. CHARLIE ROSE: And do we not want to keep bases there? KAREN HUGHES: No, we want to bring our people home as soon as possible.”

Now here’s the irony of it all… and it goes to point #2 and @DrJohn’s observation that Obama is, in fact, pushing along a Caliphate (whether by desire or unmitigated stupidity) by his meddling and choosing of sides in the ME. For you see those that are pushing for a “permanent base” in Iraq… never an objective, I repeat, of Bush… is the Obama admin. Why? Because of the uncertainty of those so called “freedom fighters” in the “Arab Spring”.

The question now is why the US is insistent upon keeping up the presence despite the costs.

For sure, the recent developments in the Arab world, the fall of the Tunisian and Egyptian dictators and the prospect of change in the configuration of the Persian Gulf Arab regimes would affect the US decision to remain in Iraq.

The changes, which have so far taken place, are definitely not in the interests of the US and the Israeli regime. Washington is, therefore, seriously concerned about the upheavals.

The crisis in the tiny island of Bahrain has compelled the US to seek a new location for its Fifth Fleet.

From the perspective of the US, Iraq, having passed the stage of the Arab uprisings, will enjoy greater stability in the future compared to other small Persian Gulf states.

The US, thus, suspects that the wave of Arab uprisings might spread over to the Persian Gulf states in the next year and this wave might lead to the toppling of the Arab dictatorial regimes of the Persian Gulf.

The replacement of Iraq as the location for the Fifth Fleet of the United States is one of the objectives of the US in the extending of the Baghdad-Washington security pact.

So it seems that Bush – who wanted to topple Saddam and his underground dealings with terrorist groups, help the Iraqis build their Arab democracy and get out – is not the war monger after all. It is Mr. Obama and his military advisers who, after praising Arab Spring, don’t like what they are seeing replacing the dictators.. the devil’s we knew.

It becomes even more naive to think that Obama, pushing for permanent bases, tends to ignore the AQ original complaint and reason for their 1998 World Islamic Front declaration of war, citing US bases in Saudi Arabia as one of their biggest bones of contention.

Oddly enough, this is yet another golden opportunity, slipping thru the hands of the GOP… pointing out that it is war monger, Obama, who now wants to permanently “occupy” Iraq.

Hey, it’s Iraq’s ball now. Thanks to Obama for keeping yet another campaign pledge and getting us out!

liberalmann, would you mind showing us where Obama’s signature, or those of any of his admin, are on the 2008 SOFA agreement, under which terms this withdrawal is happening?

While you’re at it, you may want to check into adult summer classes, and think about getting your GED….

BTW.. this is a perfect example of the “stolen thunder” spin in process I posted about. You get these uneducated drones, like liberaldupe, repeating it enough to other uneducated drones, and so the election year goes. He’ll probably think Obama overcame great adversity in following Bush’s SOFA agreements too… dang war monger that he is. After all, it is him who wants the permanent bases in Iraq.

Secretary of state Hillary Rodin Clinton following in the brilliant negotiating skills of Madelin Albright.

From Morocco to Afghanistan, there is in majority no comprehension of what ‘Western’ democracy means.

The people in all of these countries have forever lived under the thumbs of powerful, ruthless, dictatorial rulers whether under a local tribe chief or a Sultan/King. And in all cases, Islam has been ‘used’ when necessary to control the masses – in Saudi Arabia, that means all the time, in Iraq under Hussein, that meant when ‘useful’.

The masses don’t understand different and will always default to Sharia Law – which means Mohammed traditions and the tenets of the Koran will be the basis of government in all of these countries, ever more so when Kings and Dictators are deposed. Kings and Dictators maintain tight reigns on the Mullahs and Imams.

Soooo, . . . . that means NO DEMOCRACIES as we understand democracy – which in turn means that Mullahs will rule and be omnipotent, where dictators are removed. It will also mean fracturing of countries like Libya into regional ‘Mullah/Imam’ controlled regions.

Little-known fact: Obama’s failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

Graphic illustration:
http://media.sfexaminer.com/images/How+much+did+the+Iraq+war+cost.gif

The CBO puts the total cost of the Iraq war at $709 billion

Obama’s stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War — more than $100 billion (15%) more

During Bush’s Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)

Remember old Kerry’s statement that sunk his candidacy?
“I voted FOR the $87 billion before I voted AGAINST it.”
Only $87 billion for one of the whole years’ Iraq war budget!
Obama’s stimulus was $878 BILLION in one fell swoop!

@Nan G: You mean when the lefties come here stating that Iraq cost trillions of dollars, they either don’t have their facts straight or they are flat out lying? Who would of thought? Does that mean their claims of hundreds of thousands of civilians dying at the hands of our evil military is a bunch of lies or unproven facts as well? Amazing!

@liberalmann: barry will do anything to boost those poll numbers. He cares not one iota for anyone in the United States, he only cares about himself. If it means to kill everyone of us to get re elected, he would do it.

JOETOTE
HI
It’s getting very scary to look around that ISLAMIC CIRCLE to be, around our Ally, ISRAEL,
and they are not complaining about it,
we are not complaining about it, one thing I know is CANADA IS
their ally,
bye

Win the battles and lose the war. Canada bugged out of Afghanistan and my regiment has over 100 dead. WTF.

The 5th Fleet in Iraq?!?!

To be pinned-in at the back of the gulf?!?!

The Navy obviously wasn’t asked.

oil guy from Alberta
hi, I’m sorry to hear that, those VALLIANT WARRIOR,which are the best we have, are gone
many have their roots deep under the big tree, and should not die,
because what is replacing them is more and more not worthy of taking their places,
and It is with sadness that we hear of them gone so soon for most of them, while the ennemies multiply on this planet and emigrate in our backyard as soon as they can, with the blessing of the GOVERNMENT
who cannot dicern until to late between the good and the haters which come to multiply according to their book, and build weerd building for the future which will get them in leadership jobs to allow them to impose their brutal laws
may GOD PROTECT THE BRAVES and give them long life to those who come back.

Patvann
how nice to have you here, we don’t , too often,
best to you,
by the way, I’m thinking of joining the CANDIDATES,
TRYING TO GET THE TOP POSITION OF THE LADDER,
WOULD YOU SUPPORT MY CANDIDACY AGAIN?

Bee warrior(ma petite soeur)(my little sister). Why the hell are we in the UN and NATO? Political correctness will get you killed. We can field over 500 sniper teams and nothing moves inside a mile. We are a rottweiler with no teeth. Hey yanks, does that sound familiar? Rules of engagement or rules of disengagement? Politics and war- what a mess. You guys got another Eisenhower?

Never fear. We are just transitioning to a new strategy where contractors and CIA special ops units keep the peace in the world covertly.

oil guy from Alberta
yes, I know from what I read the UN is increasing their power, to COUNTRIES,
AND MOVING IN, establishing their rules of do it or else,
that would have been unthinkeble not so long ago to see the reverse actions done,
when a COUNTRY IS HAVING A REVOLUTION, TO GO AND HELP THE REVOLT FROM THE BEGINNING,
AND TELL THE LEADER TO LEAVE,
what a dangerous enabler in power can do is unprecedent, in the history,
and that must be eradicated like the beast of the apocalypse,
bye

Liberal1[objectivity]
don’t be so sure, don’t feel so detach from the reality,
your type of person are the first to cry, instead of acting you think the other will save you,
but you forget that the other need all the one expecting to be save, to be awake.

Key general: Iraq pullout plan a ‘disaster’

President Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq by Dec. 31 is an “absolute disaster” that puts the burgeoning Arab democracy at risk of an Iranian “strangling,” said an architect of the 2007 troop surge that turned around a losing war.

Retired ArmyGen. John M. Keane was at the forefront of persuading President George W. Bush to scuttle a static counterinsurgency strategy and replace it with 30,000 reinforcements and a more activist, street-by-street counterterrorism tactic.

Today, even with that strategy producing a huge drop in daily attacks, Gen. Keane bluntly told The Washington Times that the United States again is losing.

Yes, I read Keane’s assessments, as well as other military commanders, drj. But then there’s somewhat of a disconnect here. They are speaking in generalities, and we have to deal with the realities.

Iraq only wanted 5000 trainers, and no immunity. You do not see Keanes and other generals arguing that 5000 training troops were going to make the difference. Rather, what they are arguing is that the US should be convincing Iraq that they still need a hefty size of US troops, and intel specialists, as continued protection.

Well, that’s not the options on the table, is it? Iraq will not accept continued high troop levels of any kind, so end of story. What they will accept is 5000. That’s it. End of discussion.

Are we supposed to bully them into continued, and unwelcomed presence because we know better? Or should we honor their belief that they are ready to ride the bike without the training wheels now? Did we not go there so that they could grow into a nation, ready to defend itself? Or is it up to the US to decide if they are ready?

Let the Iraqis ride solo, drj. If their new government were threatened, they’d ask for help. But for now, it’s time to just accept the Bush withdrawal schedule and tout it as a success. Time to put a bit of faith in the Iraqis, and see how they do.

And for heavens sake… let the Dems don the war monger title for awhile. Of late, it’s far more appropriate.

@MataHarley:

And for heavens sake… let the Dems don the war monger title for awhile. Of late, it’s far more appropriate.

Can’t argue with that, but I liked the association of Obama and “disaster” since it is so accurate.

LOL! No doubt that O’butthead is really spelled d-i-a-s-t-e-r. On this issue, however, it’s not O’butthead’s disaster. It’s Bush’s military success.

Now it’s time for the Iraqis to step up, as they are willing to do. Their request for assistance was very limited, capped at 5000 trainers only, and with unacceptable terms. So now it’s time to wish them luck, and let them know we are available as allies if they run into trouble.

That’s our boy… snatching defeat from the jaws of victory! I’m just glad my son got out of Iraq before the Apologizer-in-Chief took office! It’s a shame what he’s done to our military!!

Really miss ya, GWB!

@FedUp: What everyone here fails to understand is that Iraq does not have air support while All of their neighbors are fairly well stocked with fighters, and bombers. At a minimum, we should be prepared to support the Kurds. They have proved to be stanch supporters of the US and are under seige from all of their neighbors to include the Iraqi Arabs. Pulling troops will mean many Kurds will again die.

Iraqi’s to America; ‘Oh please stay in our country and destroy even more of our infrastructure and kill tens of thousands more innocent women and children!’ Lol!

FedUP; What has Obama ‘done’ to our military except INCREASE its budget!

@MataHarley: Oh Zing, mataharley! Take your incoherent comment and put the blame on me. Classic.

@MataHarley: So….you’re still beleeving that Saddam had ‘dealings with terrorist groups?’ Uh, ok…..cuckoo!

@Nan G: Wrong. The figures you mention are added on to Bush’s defecit which was NEVER included in his budgets.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html

@liberalmann:, “incoherent”? Thanks for letting me know your command of language limitations. I’ll try to use simple, short sentences with equally simple words in the future… i.e.

You’re an embarrassment to the public school system.

Simple ’nuff?

INRE @your comment #31, obviously reading the Iraq Pentagon reports is above your level of comprehension. However the archives are full of the documentation about Saddam’s dealing with the jihad movements. Most notably, and not exclusively limited to, Zawahiri as of 1993.

oops… probably a mistake to put that many words over four letters in such a loooooooong sentence. LOL

@liberalmann:

: So….you’re still beleeving that Saddam had ‘dealings with terrorist groups?’ Uh, ok…..cuckoo!

It has been proven that Sadaam gave aid and comfort to terrorist groups, as well as his involvement in chemical warfare against his own people (apparently liberals don’t care about genocide any more) as well as environmentalist terrorism of the tenth degree.

Why do you liberals not care about children and their lives any more?

IVAN,
that was right on the button,
bye

@ilovebeeswarzone: Yeah, bees, I don’t check my intellectual honesty at the door like others do.

@liberalmann:So dingbat, have you ever heard of Abu Nidal? To refresh your memory, he was behind the Olympic kidnapping. He mysteriously committed suicide in Baghdad with an AK 47 in August 2002. I think it was the 7th or 8th round that finally got him. Think he was on vacation in Baghdad?
Then if you are literate, you likely read some of the papers the military captured in Saddam’s various residences and that that are posted on line. They document Saddam’s meetings with various terrorists. Some were al Qaeda. He even had a training site where terrorists practiced taking over an airplane. I know, I was there!
I expect the next thing you will not acknowledge is that there were WMD in Iraq! You likely conveniently forgot about the nerve agents that were found when they were supposed to have been destroyed. You likely didn’t hear about the 500 tons of yellow cake our military found and our government sold to the Canadian government on behalf of the Iraqi people.
May be you need to be more widely read before you make ignorant comments!

I will ALWAYS support you Miss Beez!

-And go-Mata-go!!!

-Sorry I’ve been away. Been busy preparing others.

PATVANN , THANK YOU, BEST TO YOU

@liberalmann:

Wrong. The figures you mention are added on to Bush’s defecit which was NEVER included in his budgets.

You can hide it all you want from the budget but you cannot hide it from the debt, which closed to $160 billion in 2007 before Clinton’s housing fiasco set in.

Obama’s failed simulus cost more than then entire Iraq war- and can you show me where Obama’s war is located in the budget?

@ilovebeeswarzone:

I think you mistake my meaning. This is reality: War of the future will be conducted by mercenaries, contractors, and CIA special ops units, covertly. It only took about 500 combined British Special Force and local mercenaries to turn around an anti-government terrorist army of thousands in one African country before it reached all-out war. As I understand, Clinton had suggested using the same alternative to civil war in Sierra Leone. But public sentiments were opposed—hence this alternative was not used, and the continuing civil war lasted over 10 years, and accomplished the same result as desired by the US and its allies.

@Liberal1 (objectivity):

It only took about 500 combined British Special Force and local mercenaries to turn around an anti-government terrorist army of thousands in one African country before it reached all-out war.

Hello? Without our bombs it fails.

Not everyone in the GOP thinks that Obama’s Iraq policy is misguided.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/189523-withdrawal-plan-in-iraq-splits-gop

e.g.

A 12-term veteran, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) even took to Twitter to call out the Republican candidates for their criticism of Obama. “If we’re going to get out of Iraq, the sooner the better,” he wrote. “I don’t understand some of my GOP colleagues and presidential candidates.”

In an interview on Monday, Rohrabacher said leaving a small residual force would “just make our guys targets for a longer period of time.”

“We shouldn’t be begging someone to let us keep our troops in his country and waste our own military resources and sacrifice the lives of our people,” he said. “Begging someone to let us do that is just idiotic.”

Rohrabacher is one of a number of House Republicans — both veterans and Tea Party freshmen — who have become more skeptical of U.S. military intervention abroad, especially with the nation in dire fiscal straits at home. The current dynamic is a shift from the GOP of the last decade, which gave Bush steadfast support in the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Most of us who went along with the invasion of Iraq are sorry about that, because there is no benefit to us that we have received that is worth the price that we paid there,” Rohrabacher said.

He criticized both McCain, the GOP presidential nominee in 2008, and Romney for voicing a foreign-policy message that he suggested had long ago gone out of favor, and he described a foreign-policy “division on what kind of strategy should be used” within the GOP.

“I think John McCain gets carried away by his own military bravado,” Rohrabacher said.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

openid.aol.com/runnswim
hi,
I can understand his point, there’s a man who have seen a lot and now retited
want to protect the troops, it’s very legit of him.
when so many decisions are made unilateraly without asking the CONGRESS,
BUT ALIGN with the UN INSTEAD, which is a very dangerous shift from the AMERICAN LAWS OF THE LAND BEING SET ASIDE LIKE NON IMPORTANT BY THE PRESENT LEADERSHIP OF THIS GREAT NATION OF BRAVES WHO ARE ORDER TO GO IN THE WORLD OF AMERICA’S HATERS TO HELP THEM,CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN SOMEDAY, ONLY BECAUSE THE PEOPLE
ELECTED THE WRONG MAN TO SERVE THIS GREAT NATION,
BYE