‘I Said I’d End the War in Iraq — I Ended It’

Loading

Screen-shot-2014 obama iraq

By now everyone should know that anything Obama says today is void tomorrow.

Despite the fact that far too late Obama is doing the right thing in Iraq, this is a good time to crank up the Wayback Machine and revisit the monster known as Hubris Obamus.

2007: Preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

First, though, let’s acknowledge that Obama did keep his word about one thing. 1500 civilians were recently slaughtered by ISIS. Obama didn’t even blink. To his credit, he told us that genocide wasn’t enough for him to act.

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

2011: ‘We’re Leaving Behind a Sovereign, Stable and Self-Reliant Iraq’

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKSb2ukQxvY[/youtube]

It was a “moment of success,” he said.

Ironically, he said it at Fort Bragg

June 2014: Obama Rules Out Airstrikes in Iraq for Now

Mr. Obama ultimately may decide not to order air attacks, senior U.S. officials said, bucking what for days appeared to be the leading U.S. option to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, the terror group that has seized a large swath of Iraq’s north and west. U.S. strikes are still actively under discussion, but the officials cautioned Tuesday that they don’t expect Mr. Obama to put military action back on the table quickly, and said he may announce steps in a broader U.S. response over time.

August 2014 White House: “There Are No Military Solutions In Iraq… Only Political”…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9iNY2L_Ha4[/youtube]

George Bush 2005: Bush: Leaving Iraq Too Soon Would Endanger America

Leaving Iraq before the mission there is finished will make America less, not more, secure and will send a dangerous message that will ring around the world, President Bush said today here at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.
Speaking the day before Iraq’s national elections, Bush disputed critics who claim the United States would be safer and Iraq less violent if the United States withdrew its forces there.

“This view presumes that if we were not in Iraq, the terrorists would be leaving us alone,” Bush said.

2014: Hayden: Obama Pulled Out of Iraq Too Soon

The White House’s decision to complete the final withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq in 2011 set the stage for the current unrest, according to Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of both the National Security Agency and the CIA.

…..

“President Bush used to huddle with [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] about every two weeks in a video conference, doing a lot of coaching and mentoring,” Hayden said. “That stopped when President Obama came in. He didn’t want to do that.”

In 2008, President George W. Bush and and Iraqi government signed the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, setting a start and end date for the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Without ground troops, the United States’ ability to gather intelligence became severely handicapped, Hayden said.

“When you don’t have a footprint throughout the country, remember, it’s not just the military that left, we dramatically cut back our diplomatic presence as well, deciding because of security reasons that we would not have consulates in a variety of Iraqi cities,” Hayden said. “So we just have fewer platforms from which to observe what’s going on in Iraq.”

2014: Obama caught flat footed by ISIS

United States intelligence agencies were caught by surprise when fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) seized two major Iraqi cities this week and sent Iraqi defense forces fleeing, current and former U.S. officials said Thursday. With U.S. troops long gone from the country, Washington didn’t have the spies on the ground or the surveillance gear in the skies necessary to predict when and where the jihadist group would strike.

The speed and ease with which well-armed and highly trained ISIS fighters took over Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and Tikrit, the birthplace of former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein, have raised significant doubts about the ability of American intelligence agencies to know when ISIS might strike next, a troubling sign as the Islamist group advances steadily closer to Baghdad. And it harkened back to another recent intelligence miscue, in February, when U.S. spy agencies failed to predict the Russian invasion of Crimea. Both events are likely to raise questions about whether the tens of billions of dollars spent every year on monitoring the world’s hot spots is paying off — and what else the spies might be missing.

2014: GOP: We warned you

The group beat back government forces in Mosul and Tikrit and was within 60 miles of Baghdad late Thursday.

“It was something that we warned the president about over a three-year period,” Inhofe said, referencing letters Republicans sent to Obama in 2009, 2010, and last year. “Now, it’s worse than it was before. It’s very depressing.

“One of the most dangerous battlegrounds during the Iraq war was Fallujah,” Inhofe said. “To lose that, after they spent their blood to gain it — this is an America that I have never known before.”

And House Speaker John Boehner charged that Obama was caught “taking a nap” on Iraq despite the Republican warnings, particularly in the last year.

“It’s not like we haven’t seen this problem coming for over a year,” Boehner said. “And it’s not like we haven’t seen, over the last five or six months, these terrorists moving in and taking control of western Iraq.

“Now, they’ve taken control of Mosul. They’re 100 miles from Baghdad. And what’s the president doing? Taking a nap.”

2014: Obama says ISIS is the “jayvee team”

Many of us felt Obama would take a bad situation and make it worse. He as done just that.

Lead image courtesy Weasel Zippers

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

Media reports in Lebanon [acting in behalf of ISIS] have claimed that in former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s memoir Hard Choices, she

“admitted in her book that the United States created the Islamic States and planned on acknowledging its presence.”

Of course readers of that book find nothing of the sort in there.
But lying is par for the course for Muslims.

As to Obama
As to Obama’s lies, they come straight out of his leftist ideology about war with non-state actors.
Even as he prepared to allow American bombing of ISIS Obama could not bring himself to admit ISLAM’s part in ISIS’ warring! http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gingrich-nobody-wants-to-tell-the-truth-about-radical-islam/
The multiculturalist is in denial, even as he must save enemies of the ”caliphate.”
Poor dear.

Bush: Leaving Iraq Too Soon Would Endanger America

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14, 2005 – Leaving Iraq before the mission there is finished will make America less, not more, secure and will send a dangerous message that will ring around the world, President Bush said today here at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.
Speaking the day before Iraq’s national elections, Bush disputed critics who claim the United States would be safer and Iraq less violent if the United States withdrew its forces there.
“This view presumes that if we were not in Iraq, the terrorists would be leaving us alone,” Bush said.
In reality, the president said, terrorists have been targeting America for years – as evidenced by attacks on New York’s World Trade Center in 1993, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000 and the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001.
All these incidents occurred when the United States did not have a single American troop in Iraq, the president noted.
“Cutting and running” in Iraq, as Bush said some critics have suggested the United States do, would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Middle East and the world, he said.
It would tell Iraqis risking their lives for democracy that America is more interested in leaving than in helping them succeed, Bush said. It would tell terrorists that they can wait out America, emboldening them and inviting new attacks on the United States. And it would tell U.S. friends and allies that “when the going gets tough, America will retreat,” he said.
But just as importantly, Bush said, setting an artificial deadline for leaving Iraq would send the wrong message to U.S. troops serving on the front lines in the war on terror.
“It would tell them that America is abandoning the mission they are risking their lives to achieve, and that the sacrifice of their comrades killed in this struggle has been in vain,” he said.
“I make this pledge to the families of the fallen,” the president said. “We will carry on the fight, we will complete their mission, and we will win.”
The United States will honor its fallen troops’ sacrifice by acknowledging what Bush said it has helped achieve: “the birth of a free and sovereign Iraqi nation that will be a friend of the United States and a force for good in a troubled region of the world.”
The president vowed that the United States will continue standing by the Iraqi people as they build their new democracy and set an example for the rest of the Middle East. Doing so, he said, will help ensure America’s security, not only today, but also for future generations.
“In our fight to keep Americans free, we’ll never quit,” he said. “We will fight this war without wavering, and we will prevail

Because you link goes no where !

Ralph Waldo Emerson:

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

In 2008, President George W. Bush and and Iraqi government signed the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, setting a start and end date for the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Bush signed the timetable to pull out not Obama. Bush pledged that we would leave, but actually he had little choice if he did not sign the SOFA agreement in Dec of 2008 ALL US troops would lose their protection from criminal prosecution under Iraqi law.
Invading and occupying Iraq was a stupid idea, and you just can’t fix stupid.
The big losers in the Iraq debacle have ALWAYS been the christians and other religious minorities who were always protected by the secular Saddam. Who do you think Dr J we should be supporting in Iraq: the Maliki government that is best friends with Iran and whose fighters are in Iraq fighting for him? Or the ISIS who are backed by the saudi and Kuwati royals?

Funny how the hawks on the right who supported Bush’s illegal war now complain when Obama lobs a few missiles to protect Christians. You children will find a way to whine about anything.

Compare the two statements. First this from a campaign stump speech in 2007:

“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

then this:

Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”…

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
March, 2011

Everything Obama says has a shelf life; a very short one. IOW, he has no real foreign policy. He flies by the seat of his pants, and now he is trying to play to the 35% of Americans who still support him. You know, the same people who were raised by the anti-war protesters of the 60’s.

George Bush won the war.

Barack Obama lost the peace.

@This one: You are really obtuse. The complaint isn’t that he’s “lobbing a few missiles to protect Christians”. The complaint is his naivete in world affairs, and the fact that he’s done nothing but squander any advantages that we might have gained in Iraq.

How many safe havens for terrorists were there in Iraq in 2009? How many will there be there and in Afghanistan in 2017 when this incompetent noob leaves office?

George Bush won the war.

Barack Obama lost the peace.

You can say it until you believe it, but no one who has a clue ever will.

The Bush presidency was a disaster. Obama’s burden has been to do the clean-up.

@Jeff D: Oh, Jeffy! Kids say the darndest things! Maybe you can get a visa and visit us in reality some day?

Do you recall what your own fearless leader said about conditions in Iraq when he pulled out? Are you calling Obama a liar?

What needs cleaning up is the last six years of bumbling incompetence both foreign and domestic.

Jeffy? You sound like a child yourself. The Ralph Waldo Emerson quote flew by about 2 feet over your head, didn’t it? Reading comprehension issues, probably.

It’s funny as hell how you’re using Samuel Clemen’s photo. I guess he might appreciate it. He liked irony.

@Jeff D: Funny, you using a quote with “Waldo” that doesn’t have “Where’s” in front of it!

Which part of “Obama lost the peace” didn’t you understand? Toddle off now Jeffy, and let the adults talk.

@Jeff D: You are a Obama cheerleader and sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome. We got it.

Anything else? Your posts are pure ignorance, sentiment, and childishness. If you have the need to pester, OK. You won’t be impressing your views on any one here, so I’d stop while you’re behind and just call it a day.

The entertainment/media propaganda campaign worked on you: Bush bad, Obama good. And that’s about all you can add to any “argument”.

Run on home, boy.

@This one:

Funny how the hawks on the right who supported Bush’s illegal war now complain when Obama lobs a few missiles to protect Christians. You children will find a way to whine about anything.

Can you, without lying, tell us what the illegal part was? Ironic, isn’t it, that Obama is using the USS G H W Bush battle group to launch the strikes? This is probably intentional so that if anything goes wrong, he can again blame Bush for it.

This whole thing reminds of the Clinton Years (for better or worse).

Dems like to drop bombs and fire missiles, and make sure it’s not technically a “war”.

Bush . . . and Congress and the Senate . . . went to war and got it done in a matter weeks. Liberals had to do something, so we got the non-stop culture war of Bush Derangement Syndrome. They drummed up the usual headaches of occupying a country as “failure” when it was not so. I believe Iraq was in hand in a matter of two weeks. If you’re going to do war, do it. What the Dems seem to do is a fainted hearted attempt at war that they can cover their asses on and say “we never went to war”.

The current situation is just like before Bush: the enemy will simply put their heads down and wait out any attacks. Their will be no troops and no real pressure.

This is what the Dems want: drop bombs and exert our will on other countries, but with zero casualties. It’s cowardice and completely shameful.

Obama failed to “end” the war in Iraq. He’s ensure the death of more people, due to maintaining a false image rather than doing what is right.

Bush was a real President, and those not taking their political views from comedy central all know it.

@Bill: Bill: I happen to speak Moonbat, so let me translate for you:
An “illegal war” is like Bush’s, where he got bipartisan authorization from Congress before he acted.
A “legal” war is like Obama firing missiles in Libya without even consulting Congress, but, since he’s leading from behind, it’s probably not really war at all.

And even though he did not budget for spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Libya, Obama’s not “putting the war on a credit card”, because…Bush!!!

@Nathan Blue:

@Jeff D: You are a Obama cheerleader and sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome. We got it.

If only what you “got” had more to do with reality and less to do with your obsession with Obama. Bush Derangement Syndrome was NEVER like this.

@Jeff D:

You are a fool to believe that.

Tell us….how many movies have been made showing Obama being assassinated at any time, much less when he is still in office? You do remember such a film came out showing Bush being assassinated while he was president, don’t you? And even after Bush left office, an early episode of Game of Thrones placed an effigy of Bush’s head on a pike.

Those of us who deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan don’t feel it was stupid to go there, and only idiots cling to the propaganda that it was an illegal war, seeing as how congress – including democrats like Kerry and Hillary – voted to go to war , and the UN sanctioned it as well. Contrast that with Obama sending the US military into the fight to topple Qaddafi without congressional authorization. There is no credibility in the ridiculous position the left takes in claiming that congress and the American people were lied to about Saddam’s WMD efforts, as the best available intelligence – believed by even Bill Clinton – was that Saddam was building up WMD. The hysteria from the left over this falsely characterized “lie” is empty political posturing given the left’s blase attitude over the blatant lies Obama has told about Obamacare not being a tax, being able to keep your doctor and your plan, lowering the cost of insurance, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, and Fast and Furious. It was, however, incredibly stupid to pull out of Iraq prematurely, as events now clearly show. It is even more incredibly stupid to engage in half hearted air strikes against a handful of targets. The serves only to solidify the jihadist savages in the idea that the US is weak and doddering.

The crybaby whining about Bush alledgedly leaving a mess for Obama to clean up only demonstrates that leftists, like spoiled children, have to blame someone else for their failures. Reagan inherited a mess from Carter, and it only took him 2 years to turn things around. Obama is on year 6, and both foreign and domestic situations are growing worse due to his gross incompetence and apparent laziness.

@Pete: It is much more productive taking out the garbage than responding to these fools!

Of course you can claim to end any war, just like the Japanese did in the Second World War: by unconditional surrender to your enemy.

What it does require for a war to end is for your enemy to also cease fighting you – even if you have surrendered.

As we have seem from triumphant IS(IS) massacre videos from Syria: just because you’ve surrendered doesn’t mean IS isn’t going to continue killing you until they think the war is over – which may be when there isn’t anyone left but IS.

Contrary to (leftist) popular belief in the war between Gaza and Israel, war doesn’t start when Israel fights back – it doesn’t take two sides to start a war – but ending a war does require all parties to stop fighting – again contrary to (leftist) popular belief that this war would be over if Israel stopped fighting back.

If there is only one party left after a war, then there is peace!

@Bill: Josey Wales: “Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you’re not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. ‘Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That’s just the way it is.”

@Bill: Good point.
Alexander Hamilton on whether or not we need to ”declare” war to “be at” war:

“The Congress shall have power to declare War;” the plain meaning of which is that, it is the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war; whether from calculations of policy or from provocations or injuries received: in other words, it belongs to Congress only, to go to War. But when a foreign nation declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then by the very fact, already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory: it is at least unnecessary.

@Nanny G:

The left doesn’t want to admit we are still in a war. ObL declared war on the United States, but it was ignored by the rocket scientists in D.C., the mindset that a group, instead of a nation, could not declare war nor could they wage it. We learned differently, didn’t we?

And the war ends when the cessation of hostilities end. That has not happened. But since 9-11, Islamic groups have made great inroads into our nation; through Saudi groups that pour money into “Islamic” studies in our colleges and universities, through grants like the NEA grant, Muslim Journeys, that makes its way into our elementary education; through groups like CAIR and ISNA, who are welcomed with open arms in the White House, and even through the appointment of a Muslim Brotherhood supporter to a high level in the national security division.

We are being infiltrated, and the left turns a blind eye.

You cannot defeat an enemy if you don’t acknowledge who they are.

@Jeff D: That’s all you got? Thought so. I say you have an irrational obsession with Bush (Bush Derangement Syndrome), and you say “Nuh-uh! You have “Obama Derangement Syndrome! You aren’t in reality!”

Yeah, we got it.

Turns out your champion is a false god, and most Obama disciples are either fading into the shadows to rethink their lives, or boldly repeating the same garbage we’ve heard for the past six or so years . . . sounding less rational by the day. You appear to be in the later category. Obama isn’t the issue. It’s the conduct of people that support a form of demagoguery and totalitarianism I never thought possible in this country. You, Jeff. Not your views, per se, because I’m glad you have your views (even if I disagree) and hope you never lose the right to have them. The issue is that you want me to lose my voice in the public sphere: that’s the voice and presence of too many of the lib/dem party these days. Scary, to say the least.

As I said, we got it. Have your opinion, but don’t go trolling on blogs that share different views than yours in an attempt to project, vent, or otherwise just fight with people you don’t even know.

@This one: Hold on their cowboy. You speak as if Bush made a unilateral partisan decision to go to Iraq!! Your wrong as usual and choose to ignore the fact that over 70 Democrats looked at the same data and supported the action. I will provide these names if you need them. You can also provide me a list of Republicans who voted for the worst disaster in healthcare EVER!! Oblamacare. I’m waiting and read your history a little better before you post in the big kids room!!

@Common Sense #26:

Going into Iraq was a mistake. It would seem that both the Republicans AND the Democrats who supported Bush in that nation-rebuilding adventure would have figured that out by now. We invaded in 2003, and Bush announced several months later that major combat operations were over. Like the deal was done. As if groups of people who have been fighting each other for thousands of years would ever stop because some nice people from far away had some nice ideas for them and some money to help them change their ways. Talk about liberal fantasies! When you set about stirring up hornet nests, you had better make sure that you have the stomach to stay at it for the hundred years that McCain predicted we would need to be there in force, and you’d better be sure that your commitment isn’t going to depend on different presidents (like Obama) who represent different constituencies who may not all share your dedication to a prolonged and bankrupting effort to help people who don’t WANT to be helped in an area of the world that you have very little business interfering with in the first place.

@George Wells:

Going into Iraq was a mistake

Going to war for the intended purpose of securing the WMD’s that could have fallen into the hands of terrorists that would have used them on an American city was a mistake, but only one known after the fact that the intelligence was faulty. Based on the information available and the threat that information posed, it was NOT a mistake; it was a necessity. In fact, Obama claims to have deposed Khadafy for the same reason.

@Bill:
Hadn’t Kaddafi (sp???) given up all his WMDs well before Obama took office?
It wasn’t until the Muslim Brotherhood and the so-called ”Arab Spring” that Obama wanted Gaddafi out of office.
And wouldn’t North Africa have been a different place if both Egypt AND Libya had fallen (with Obama’s help) to the Muslim Brotherhood?

Just this week, Egypt made the Muslim Brotherhood illegal.

@George Wells: The situation was/is even more complicated than you say.

We invaded in 2003, and Bush announced several months later that major combat operations were over. Like the deal was done.

That was media play. The “deal” of invading the conquering Iraq was done. Anyone with sense understood we were now occupying a country, and casualties would occur.

The Lincoln’s “Mission Accomplished” banner was hung for the sailors, because they were coming off of a successful deployment. It hung behind Bush, and the media intentionally misused the banner to tell a story to the rubes in order to foment discord and hate. The libs/dems desperately wanted to hate Bush for something…anything. Irrational constructs abounded.

That was the Dems “mission accomplished”, because it cleared the way for the poor and low-information types to vote for whatever demagogue they branded in front of them.

Not all believe going into Iraq was a mistake, so stop with the 11-year-old propaganda. Leaving Iraq for campaign reasons rather than doing you job is a mistake. Period.

@George Wells: By the way, the primary goal of the Iraq War was not to uplift the Iraqi people. It was for the following:

1. Saddam was about to allow western nations to develop oil fields and trade in Euros.
2. Iraq was a continual threat to it’s neighbors, and also spurned the USA.
3. Iraq had the largest ME military.
4. We wanted to put a giant “USA” boot print in the sand. A show of power, if you will.

None of this was easy to explain to the public, and the dem politicians all threw Bush under the bus when their constituencies were being whipped up by comedy central and Green Day rather than the truth. The pop culture masses, mad about what ever CNN told them to be mad about.

The WMD’s argument was a real one, but it was the only easily digestible one to allow the public mob into discussing. We went to Iraq for many reasons. Obama wishes to be seen as “undoing” anything accredited to Bush (Iraq War was all branches and parties, not just Bush) because that’s in line with BDS and the power that comes with exploiting it.

@Nathan Blue #31:

Well, you make some good points about our motives pre-Iraq. Problem is – bottom line, it was a mistake, because we failed. We couldn’t sustain McCain’s 100-year military commitment. We couldn’t accomplish anything more with our military might than sending the various warring factions into temporary remission like persistent, incurable viruses. We put corrupt clowns in power because nothing better was available.

(Maybe you should look at Bill’s #28. He at least recognizes that our principle EXCUSE was based on incorrect information, but he forgives the error. I doubt that he would similarly forgive a surgeon for making a deadly error in the operating room after misdiagnosing a minor problem with his child.)

The four “reasons” you list for legitimately going to war seem different than those specified in the Geneva Convention. And while I sympathize with your dismay over America’s love affair with comedy, that’s a fact of life we have to deal with. Last I looked, the First Amendment protects Comedy Central’s right to report-and-distort as it sees fit.

@George Wells:

Well, you make some good points about our motives pre-Iraq. Problem is – bottom line, it was a mistake, because we failed.

So you are saying that Obama’s claim that we were pulling out of a stable Iraq was a lie? We did not fail. Our military did not fail. Obama failed. He campaigned on his Green Party values, saying he would remove our troops from Iraq, and now he is trying to run from it. Iraq was a hellofa lot more stable before he screwed the pooch there.

We couldn’t sustain McCain’s 100-year military commitment.

How long have we had troops in Germany? I can tell you; it will be 70 years next year. And there are no plans of pulling our troops out of Germany. How long have we had troops in South Korea? Japan?

Think before you made stupid statements.

We couldn’t accomplish anything more with our military might than sending the various warring factions into temporary remission like persistent, incurable viruses. We put corrupt clowns in power because nothing better was available.

So what is your answer? Allow the various factions to kill each other until they tire of that and turn on us? Do you think that the radicalism that is Islam is not coming to our shores? ObL told us he was coming for us. Nobody listened or believe him and almost 3,000 died on September 11, 2001.

(Maybe you should look at Bill’s #28. He at least recognizes that our principle EXCUSE was based on incorrect information, but he forgives the error. I doubt that he would similarly forgive a surgeon for making a deadly error in the operating room after misdiagnosing a minor problem with his child.)

Incorrect information that was held by many nations, including Great Britain, not just us. As to your surgeon equation, you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

What did we know about Iraq prior to our invasion? That Saddam had already gassed the Kurds. That Saddam had attempted to procure yellow cake (in fact, 500 tons of the stuff was shipped out of Iraq to Canada after we deposed Saddam), that Saddam had issued chemical weapons suits to his military and that Salmon Pak was alive and well.

I warrant you ignore all those things because it goes against your agenda of saying we were wrong in going into Iraq.

#33:
“How long have we had troops in Germany? I can tell you; it will be 70 years next year. And there are no plans of pulling our troops out of Germany. How long have we had troops in South Korea? Japan?”

And how many thousands of our troops have died in Germany, Japan and Korea? Now YOU are comparing apples to oranges.

Your implication that Iraq was on the verge of quiescent democratic peace and prosperity is ridiculous. The warring factions may have been keeping quiet, but they were obviously busy infiltrating police and military ranks and otherwise kept up their fight in quarters we could not match. We failed to appreciate the impossibility of such an occupation in Vietnam, and we made the same mistake in Iraq. Iraq is not ready for Western Civilization, and nothing we can do will ever change that.

“So what is your answer? Allow the various factions to kill each other until they tire of that and turn on us?”

Well, that seemed to have worked for the past several thousand years, minus those unfortunate intervals of “crusades” (Remember G.W.’s use of the term?). Having stirred the hornet’s nest, why are we surprised that we got stung?

North Korea is making nukes, what have we done? Nothing.
Iran is making nukes, what have we done? Nothing. (Do you REALLY think that our sanctions are working? “They THINK that their silly sanctions are hurting us. We are laughing. We will act like the sanctions are bothering us, delaying a few of our schedules, and we will convince them that we are conflicted over what to do next. This will buy us enough time to complete the 50 ICBM’s we have under construction deep in the lapis mines.”
Saddam was toying with some light stuff, brutalizing some Kurds and posturing for all he was worth. But for that? I’m not sure that I understand why we really went to Iraq. Doesn’t add up.

@George Wells: My problem is that the liberal media wants to lay Iraq at the footsteps of GW Bush and ignore the reality that it was a bipartisan confirmation to go to Iraq!! Democrats in both the Senate and House looked at the same Intel that Bush did and affirmed his desire to take action!! Obama ran on removing the troops from Iraq and now he denies it. He is a liar!! Obamacare on the other hand is 100% partisan and a failure!! He also told America that if you like your health insurance and/or doctor you can keep them “period”!! We know that 5 million Americans lost their health insurance due to Obamacare!! He lied, tried to deny it, and finally apologized and blamed private health insurance. Now we have Obamacare which is MORE costly and when the group plans get hit even more Americans will loose their Health Insurance “period”!!

@Common Sense #35:

Hey, you’re right, or at least everything except your predictions about the future of healthcare in America. Not that your prediction won’t come true. It’s just that most of what you said was past-tense and fairly accurate, while the prediction is more of a crystal-ball prognostication regarding a possible future. The ACA certainly does redistribute wealth to a degree, and that consequence was appreciated long before the legislation was signed into law. Some people have benefited, and some have been hurt. There is evidence to suggest that the net number of insured has fallen significantly, and clearly someone had to pay for those additional insured folk, and as the added insured folk were more often than not… less affluent… well, it wasn’t THEM paying the added cost. Fair? Well, as ALL taxes represent redistribution of wealth, it’s about as fair as any of them. I pay taxes, and what I pay always goes up. But I’m not suffering, and I doubt that too many are that were not already in trouble BEFORE the ACA was signed into law.

@George Wells:

And how many thousands of our troops have died in Germany, Japan and Korea? Now YOU are comparing apples to oranges.

And how many of our troops died in Germany and Korea before we put stabilizing forces in those nations? How many died in just Germany, George. You want to look at Germany from a post-war viewpoint, but look at Iraq from a war viewpoint. Double standards don’t work with those of us paying attention to what you say.

Having stirred the hornet’s nest, why are we surprised that we got stung?

How did we stir the hornet’s nest? Please, don’t tell me you’re one of those who believe that the only reason ObL and Al Qaeda came after us was because of 20th century politics. I know you are ill informed, but surely not that ill informed.

North Korea is making nukes, what have we done? Nothing.

We didn’t fight for North Korea, or has your memory failed you again?

Iran is making nukes, what have we done? Nothing.

And you can lay the blame for Iran squarely at the feet of Jimmie Carter. It is just that simple. But I guess you don’t remember that, either.

Saddam was toying with some light stuff, brutalizing some Kurds and posturing for all he was worth. But for that? I’m not sure that I understand why we really went to Iraq. Doesn’t add up.

I am not surprised that you don’t understand why we went into Iraq. You seem to understand little except for your own narrow world. Maybe you should spend some time doing some research.

#37:

Ignore that fact that IRAQ is VIETNAM, not GERMANY. Germany was a relatively civilized country, and it made a terrible mistake following an insane guy named Adolf, but when the dust settled, there wasn’t a residual insanity to speak of, and the populace was responsive to our plan for them, and it worked. Iraq wasn’t civilized, it was broadly and deeply dysfunctional, held together only by Saddam’s brutality, and we opened Pandora’s Box when we deposed him. The collective Iraqi insanity blossomed and no amount of good will or educating girls or training policemen was ever going to change that. Remember Cheney’s prediction that we would be welcome with parades in the streets? Ppppfffftttt! You can blame whomever you want, but IRAQ isn’t EVER going to be anything other than what it is today, any more than Israel and the Palestinians will EVER really make peace. There is no cultural interest in peace in either place, and neither your blame nor your military might will ever change that.

“We didn’t fight for North Korea”
What’s that got to do with anything? Our allies in the region are South Korea, which we DID fight for, and Japan who, I think, has pretty much gotten over the fact that we nuked them (we had a good reason…) and NK threatens them both. If threatening allies and building AND TESTING WMDs doesn’t warrant war, why did it do so in Iraq?

@George Wells:

Ignore that fact that IRAQ is VIETNAM, not GERMANY.

Only in one respect, and in an example that I am sure you were not thinking of when you made that statement: ROEs. And while you are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, perhaps you would like to make mention of who was basically in charge of the war in Vietnam and what party he belonged to? And don’t try to lay the blame for our failure in Southeast Asia on Nixon.

Germany was a relatively civilized country, and it made a terrible mistake following an insane guy named Adolf,

Are you freaking nuts? Do you think it was Hitler himself that gassed all those Jews in the concentration camps? Or was it the citizens of that “civilized” nation? Was it Hitler himself that burned the synagogues, or rounded up the Jews? Was it Hitler, or those “civilized” people who agreed with him and were more than happy to do his dirty work?

but when the dust settled, there wasn’t a residual insanity to speak of, and the populace was responsive to our plan for them, and it worked.

Yeah, after we bombed the hell out of them and turned Dresden and Berlin into nothing but a pile of rocks. And we didn’t give a damn if we bombed their churches, or their municipal buildings, or ordered our soldiers to be able to identify their targets. We didn’t tie the hands of our soldiers in a “hearts and minds” mentality. We killed them. Men, women and children and we did it until they cried “Uncle” and stopped fighting.

You would like to twist history to fit with your narrative. I do not intend to ever let you do that.

#39:

The fact remains that Germany is now our ally. Can you honestly imagine a scenario in which Iraq ends up our ally? If you do, you are as deluded as Cheney was. Work your blame thing – it’s what you do best. But no amount of blame will ever overcome the fact that Iraq isn’t civilized and never will be in the Western sense.

“And while you are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, perhaps you would like to make mention of who was basically in charge of the war in Vietnam and what party he belonged to?”

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, for a total of 8 years of Democrat control and 13 years of Republican control of the White House during the Vietnam War. So what, exactly, is your brilliant point this time? That a Republican president started the war and another Republican President ended it 21 years later with the total collapse of the country we were “defending”? Did we get our money’s worth? Did those 58,000 dead Americans get us much besides a nice Memorial in Washington DC? Is the outcome of the IRAQ war going to be any different that the outcome of the VIETNAM War? They both cost about the same in current dollars… I’m going to predict that 10 years from now Vietnam will be our economic partner and a tourist destination, but Iraq will still be quarantined. Islam is the difference.

When I was a young military medical student I was required to write a thesis on some aspect of miltary medicine. I chose to write about the military medical response to the use of chemical weapons in WW I. The most fascinating point I found was the repeated opinion of the military physicians of the time that being killed by chemicals was no more horrific than being shot, blown up, or bayonetted. A soldier was still dead or wounded, which was what happens when war occurs. As Sherman said so bluntly, “War is Hell.”

It seems to this retired combat vet that all the effort to sanitize warfare makes it more likely that nations will risk war, because all the diplomatic dancing gives people the crazy idea that it is appropriate to use proportionality when engaging in warfare. Nothing could be further from the truth. If a nation makes the decision to bring war upon an enemy the only course that makes any sense is to rain down such destruction and misery so as to either render the enemy incapable of fighting, or to inflict such decimation that they will not want to enflame our national ire ever again. We defeated Iraq and Afghanistan each in less than 3 weeks. But the will to enact sufficient destruction to impose a lasting peace – particularly against the jihadist enemy that clearly has no respect for western concepts of civilized warfare – was undermined consistently by the left as an act of political subterfuge. Rather than punch the bully in the nose until he cried for his mommy thus ensuring he would stop acting like a bully, we stopped hitting him after his first fall, engendering the idea that we had no real stomach to really fight so he could simply bide his time to start his bullying again later.
So now we are faced with a resurgent jihadist savagery and engage in half-hearted airstrikes against pinpoint targets, announcing loudly that we will not use the full force of our military power – and we think we will accomplish anything different? Sheer insanity.
Either we acknowledge ISIS/ISIL is our enemy and enact military measures that utterly crush them, or we pull out completely and let Iraq plunge even further into hell. Dropping a bomb here or there in such a weak fashion will only embolden ISIS and further erode any respect for our military capabilities and our national will.

Thank you, Pete. Your assessment is both well written and absolutely correct. Once the United States and the Soviet Union came to appreciate the concept of “assured mutual destruction”, both became at least temporarily timid, not only with respect to each other, but also in regard to third party players, almost all of whom lean one way or the other and possess corresponding “arrangements” with their sponsoring superpower regarding their defense. After wasting time and money trying to subdue Afghanistan, the Soviets backed up a bit and let us waste our lives and treasure in Vietnam and now Iraq and (yet again) Afghanistan. If we had actually attempted to totally annihilate our “enemies” in any of these countries, we might well have triggered one of those mutual destruction scenarios, and we are consequently operating under the enormous disadvantage that comes from our enemy’s understanding that we very much don’t want that end. So the only rational option left is to follow Rand Paul’s advice and stand down from our beloved World Police role. I’m not entirely sure that the “left” is to blame here, unless you are comfortable with the idea of starting WW3, which liberals definitely are not. Retire05 rattles her sabers often, pointing out that Islam is already at war with us. But there are 1.6 billion Muslims, and I cannot envision a measured response that would be an effective deterrent. If we attempt to appease them, we may simply enable them to grow stronger and absorb more “converts.” So I don’t really see a realistic, winning option, and in the absence of one, I’d prefer to lay low and hope I die BEFORE all Hell breaks loose. Just MAYBE they’ll think of something else to waste their time doing in the mean time.

One other thought. In 2011 dollars, both Vietnam and Iraq cost about a trillion. Neither got the job DONE. How much MORE should we spend? Oh, and when do we go broke? (So I can take my money out of the market before that happens.)

@George Wells:

Your implication that Iraq was on the verge of quiescent democratic peace and prosperity is ridiculous.

Odd assessment, given that Obama himself, as he grandstanded pulling all the troops (against practically every intelligent person’s advice) out of Iraq, touted how peaceful and stable it was. Also what sticks out in my mind is that whenever I mention the inconvenient fact that more military deaths have occurred under Obama than under Bush, it is ALWAYS pointed out that practically all those casualties were suffered in Afghanistan while Iraq was relatively pacified.

You can’t have it both ways, George. You can’t use your talking points to support Obama’s skeedaddle from Iraq then reverse the talking points to try and show the current violent condition is merely the normal state of affairs. Through the bravery, dedication and suffering of our military, Iraq was stabilized. Through the stupidity and selfishness of Obama, all that was squandered.

@Bill #43:
“Your implication that Iraq was on the verge of quiescent democratic peace and prosperity is ridiculous.”
“Odd assessment, given that Obama himself, as he grandstanded pulling all the troops (against practically every intelligent person’s advice) out of Iraq, touted how peaceful and stable it was.”

What is so odd, that both you and Obama made the SAME mistake?
Don’t believe everything retire05 tells you about me. I’m not Obama’s parrot. He has not succeeded in salvaging a decent resolution out of an otherwise screwed up situation that while not entirely responsible for, he certainly contributed generously to.

“Also what sticks out in my mind is that whenever I mention the inconvenient fact that more military deaths have occurred under Obama than under Bush, it is ALWAYS pointed out that practically all those casualties were suffered in Afghanistan while Iraq was relatively pacified.”

In-so-far as I have not “pointed out that practically all those casualties were suffered in Afghanistan while Iraq was relatively pacified,” I don’t believe that your use of the word “always” is accurate. I would further dispute your implication that there is a relative acceptability attached to some numbers of military deaths but not to others. As the Benghazi parrots like to stress, four unnecessary deaths are four too many.

The current violent condition that is merely the normal state of Iraqi affairs is precisely why we SHOULD get out of Iraq. There are no “both ways” involved – the operative cause-and-effect is linear, with needing to”get out of Iraq” following directly from the “normal violent state of affairs in Iraq.”

“Through the bravery, dedication and suffering of our military, Iraq was stabilized.”
That’s rich. Iraq was “stabilized” exactly like you can temporarily “stabilize” an unreleased fart. The minute you relax your clenched anal sphincter, the trapped gasses are released, and the same thing happened in Iraq. The so called “normal state of affairs in Iraq” would be better understood in the context of where its equilibrium resided. Having the US Military sitting firmly on your back isn’t a state of equilibrium, because there is no way that we can afford to keep the US Military perpetually in that position. For that matter, having Saddam sitting on their backs doesn’t represent an equilibrium state either, as our removal of him proved.

@Pete:

If a nation makes the decision to bring war upon an enemy the only course that makes any sense is to rain down such destruction and misery so as to either render the enemy incapable of fighting, or to inflict such decimation that they will not want to enflame our national ire ever again. We defeated Iraq and Afghanistan each in less than 3 weeks. But the will to enact sufficient destruction to impose a lasting peace – particularly against the jihadist enemy that clearly has no respect for western concepts of civilized warfare – was undermined consistently by the left as an act of political subterfuge.

There was a time that we, as a nation, had a simple war policy; they lose, we win. We were hell bent on letting the enemy know that we would do what ever it took to defeat our enemies. We bombed Germany until it looked like a quarry. We sent Little Boy to give a message to the Japanese, and when they didn’t pay attention, we sent Fat Man to convince them we were serious and would wipe the island of Japan off the map if that was what was necessary. In total war, total destruction of our enemies was never off the table.

But then we instituted new ROEs. DMZs, etc. When we sent our troops to Iraq, as you know, our military was not allowed to fire on a sniper sitting in a mosque tower. Our military could not send a rocket to destroy that mosque that was being used as a vantage point for killing our soldiers. The whole “hearts and minds” mentality which was pure insanity.

George wants to apply the “why can’t we all be friends” mentality to the war on terrorists. He, like so many uninformed people, think we are still conducting traditional warfare. He learned nothing from Vietnam, a war where we never lost a battle, but lost the war on the streets of Washington, D.C. and other major cities. He heeds not the words of General Giap.

He ignores the history of Islamism. They don’t need a reason for war. It is written, and so it shall be, and all the Kumbaya singing will have no effect.

We cannot defeat an enemy if we will not call them what they are. We cannot defeat an enemy when we are more concerned with hearts and minds, and collateral damage (the killing of civilians) and until we realize that we are in a new form of war against an enemy that wears no uniform, bears no patch on their sleeves, and will walk among us plotting their dirty deeds, we are, and will remain, on the losing end.

We are in another phase of a very long war. The Islamists do not hate us because we did something untoward in the Middle East. They hate us because we are not Islamists. We are viewed, by them, as a Christian nation, and that is the only reason they wage war on us. They are directed by the Koran to wage war on the infidel. That be us.

We must accept that we are in a religious war against an enemy that will kill its own to promote the Califate. I blame President Bush for trying to dispel the idea of a religious war, for that is truly what this is. But I also blame Obama for his feckless Green Party ideals toward Iraq.

When Obama saw that Maliki was going with the whole Arab/Muslim ”one man, one vote, one time,” crap he (Obama) should have stepped in.
Instead it appears Obama was watching to see if he, too, could pull such a stunt off.
Maliki couldn’t, but it ruined Iraq.
Obama can’t either, but he’s ruining the US trying.

Your assessments of the wars you reference are correct. Surprisingly so, as you have completely misconstrued my, as you put it: “why can’t we all be friends” mentality. That question I have repeatedly asked referred specifically to the two political parties in THIS country, not to terrorists elsewhere. How ever did you miss the “united WE stand, divided WE fall” part of what I said. And all of that was in the context of AMERICANS working together to solve our OWN problems here at home.

I have no illusions about “Kumbaya singing” with Muslims. I’m just not ready to start WW3, and both you and Pete seem to be agreeing that the total annihilation of Islam is the only solution that includes the possibility of our survival. I think that the time for that option has passed. Containment might not work, but I see it as the only viable course of action. And by “containment,” I don’t mean taking the fight to their soil. There is entirely too much mojo connected to the dirt in the Middle East, and only a nuclear-winter inducing nuclear remediation of that soil condition would eliminate that problem. Just because I don’t have a good solution to this problem doesn’t mean that I’m willing to pursue a really bad one.

“George… learned nothing from Vietnam.” Why would you say that??? I agree that it wasn’t enough to win every battle, and that the “hearts and minds” of Americans are indeed a part of the equation that is used to calculate success or failure in war. If YOU had learned that lesson, why would you still be calling for more military actions, knowing as you apparently do that the American public lacks the stomach to finish the job? That is no less insane than the Kumbaya-spirited ROE’s that you and I BOTH decry.

@George Wells:

In-so-far as I have not “pointed out that practically all those casualties were suffered in Afghanistan while Iraq was relatively pacified,” I don’t believe that your use of the word “always” is accurate

I don’t think I did and did not mean to imply that you have stated this; I referred to other arguments. However, the point is and the facts show that Iraq had been subdued, that, though foreign terrorist came into Iraq to cause trouble, the Iraqi people DID greet us as liberators and appreciate our efforts (though no claims of pending parades was ever made) and, when stable, most assuredly would have been an important ally.

That’s rich. Iraq was “stabilized” exactly like you can temporarily “stabilize” an unreleased fart.

While I don’t want to get into a sphinctorial discussion with you, your ANALogy is somewhat accurate; by removing our troops, we “relaxed” and the controlling force was removed. Yet, I haven’t made the argument that the job in Iraq was done; quite the contrary. We should have kept forces there to maintain the stability that existed. This is exactly my point; Iraq was stable while we were there; removing the forces destabilized and weakened Iraq. Obama did that.

@George Wells:

I’m just not ready to start WW3,

That horse has already left the barn. We are in WW3, and there is nothing we can do to turn back the clock.

and both you and Pete seem to be agreeing that the total annihilation of Islam is the only solution that includes the possibility of our survival. I think that the time for that option has passed.

Every nation, or group, has a point where they are willing to stop the hostilities toward others. It was true in 1683 and remains just as true today.

I agree that it wasn’t enough to win every battle, and that the “hearts and minds” of Americans are indeed a part of the equation that is used to calculate success or failure in war.

You really are not very smart, or very well informed, are you, George? The “hearts and minds” war policy had nothing to do with the American populace. It was a war policy that was directed at our enemies. But no surprise that you seem to misconstrue what that policy was. You have shown multiple times that you lack historical literacy.

Just because I don’t have a good solution to this problem doesn’t mean that I’m willing to pursue a really bad one.

And what are you willing to accept in order to pursue the Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul philosophy of foreign policy? How many Little Rocks, Fort Hoods, Boston Marathons and September 11s are you willing to tolerate? Like most progressives, you view war in the traditional sense when our enemy does not. Ignore the fact that Obama has a Muslim Brotherhood devotee sitting on his National Security Council. Ignore the fact that we are being infiltrated daily with those that want to kill us. Ignore that the war has already come to our shores, and that was all forewarned many times.

It is time to clean house here. Discredit groups like CAIR and ISNA. Deport, or jail, those that aid and abet the Islamists groups that are killing Christians all across the globe. Yet, CAIR and ISNA are welcomed with open arms into the White House.

We are at war. A long war. And if you have no solution to an ever growing problem, considering you are not even aware of certain war policies, perhaps you would be better served to just shut up about it and not make yourself look so foolish.

@Bill #52:

“no claims of pending parades was ever made.”

“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” –Vice President Dick Cheney, “Meet the Press,” March 16, 2003. The typical “greetings” for the “liberators” in Europe during WWII were impromptu parades. Cheney’s remark – essentially a prediction – certainly suggested the possibility that we would be similarly greeted in Iraq.

“We should have kept forces there to maintain the stability”

Really? Since when is it our job to maintain stability in other countries? Aren’t there about 100 countries out there that could really use our help “maintaining stability?” At a cost of maybe $100 billion EACH per year? Where are you coming from with this? Do you feel guilty that we screwed up the country, so now we have to “stabilize” it? How long will our guilt hold us to this task? I think that the taxpayers deserve to know…