Obama’s actions lost Iraq and gave rise to ISIS

Loading

obama iraq war 2014

Remember this?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_nxouSJq9c[/youtube]

Remember this?

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

Remember this?

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

By now you have no doubt seen the video of George W. Bush predicting what would happen in Iraq if the US failed to heed military leaders and cut and ran before Iraq was ready. Just in case…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyqfbjYD0mk[/youtube]

Obama has lost Iraq. He’s made the situation there worse. He was so anxious to put up a trophy on the 2012 election mantle that he blew off the advice from the head of the military in Iraq:

The last American commander in Iraq recommended to the Obama administration that 23,000 U.S. troops remain to cement the victory, but no deal was ever reached with Baghdad, and all combat forces went home.

That stalemate has come back to haunt the country as al Qaeda-linked extremists, who had been defeated by 2011, have returned to Iraq in a terrorist campaign to capture huge swaths of territory in northern and western areas.

And in so doing, Obama crippled the Iraqi army.

“As we pulled out of Iraq in 2011, just think of this: We had all our intelligence capability there. We knew where the enemy was. We were flying drones. We’re tracking them. We have signals intelligence pouring in, eavesdropping on phone conversations and the rest of it. We’re using our counterterrorism forces to bang against these guys. We’re passing that information to the Iraqis so their commandos can do the same,” the general said.

After several years of reduced violence in Iraq, the Americans left.

“On a given day in 2011, that screen went blank. The Iraqis went from a significant amount of intelligence on what was taking place, and the screen just went blank,” Gen. Keane said.

Without on-the-ground guidance, the Iraqi army, on which the Pentagon spent much money and time, folded last week — too incompetent to stand and fight for the cities of Mosul and Tikrit.

The military wanted to leave 23,000 troops as a residual force, but democrats had made Iraq a campaign cause célèbre and in the process forgot Newton’s Third Law.

Way back in 2008 the Obama regime promised that it would listen to commanders on the ground:

President-elect Barack Obama is not backing away from his campaign promise to bring all U.S. combat troops home from Iraq by late spring 2010.

But the question among sober-mined Pentagon planners is: Once he is in office, will the reality of war force him to reassess and put the brakes on a withdrawal?

Smart politicians always leave themselves an out, essentially reserving the right to right to renege on a campaign promise if conditions change.

For now, though, the transition team for the president-elect is signaling that Obama plans to fulfill his pledge to put U.S. troops on a fast track for home.

“He’ll listen to military commanders on the ground in — in Iraq, but I think that we want to withdraw,” John Podesta, co-chairman of the Obama transition team, told CNN’s John King over the weekend.

“I think he’s clear that he wants to withdraw the combat force from Iraq in a responsible way and that the time frame that he put out is, again, is consistent with where the Iraqi government is today,” Podesta said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

But U.S. commanders remain wary of pulling out of Iraq too fast..

A residual force in Iraq had been negotiated and was a possibility but Obama would have none of it:

McCain said it was the Obama administration that decided not to leave a residual force in Iraq after the troop surge, led by Gen. Petraeus, had stabilized the country.

“(Sens.) Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and I were in Iraq, and negotiated — and the Kurds, (former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad) Allawi, and (current Prime Minister Nouri) al-Maliki were ready to have the residual force,” McCain said.

“We came back, and I begged the administration to give them a (troop) number and a mission, and they wouldn’t do it. Those are just facts. We had it won, and I predicted in 2011, when we left, that there would be failure — and a colossal failure.”

Ironically, Obama plans to leave a residual force in Afghanistan.

Why not Iraq?

Obama whined about his getting “bad intel” for the growth of ISIS. If that is true, it’s because Obama himself crippled our ability to gather that intel.

Now, this feckless administration cannot even make up its mind whether we are at war or not.

Barack Obama:
200 rounds of golf
400 fundraisers
Lack of intelligence

Linked by Doug Ross and Pirate’s Cove Thank you!

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

Your article is a good one and makes the proper case. The meme, however, is caste at this point; we lost because we were there. No amount of the truth is likely to burst this bubble. Mostly because the amount of truth allowed to enter the debate will be infinitesimal.

I enjoyed the review, better than most. “The Americans, who have always liked to hold a leading position in the world in terms of various questions, are very good at putting pretty packages on each prospective thing and then afterwards dumping it on the whole world. The results are not difficult to predict, and so when the Americans catch a cold, the entire world sneezes” (Liang & Xiangsui, 2002, p. 93).
US leadership and global crisis management has become hysterically illiterate. The Decleraton of War is a congressional act not the unschooled action of a psychopathic.
I have referenced an excellent book that most of your readers should acquire and review.

Liang, Q., & Xiangsui, W. (2002). Unrestricted Warfare: China’s master plan to destroy America. Panama City, Panama: Pan American Publishing Company.

This only continues to validate that everything is about him. He does nothing that won’t help him politically . It doesn’t matter that he can’t run again. He is a narcissist extrodinaire. God help us, we need it.

Oh, it’s Obama’s fault, lol. No, not Bush who started this mess based on lies. Geez. Wingnuts won’t be happy until we have constant ground troops in the region so corporations like Halliburton can keep making their billions.

Retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden on Friday elaborated on his “casual sex” analogy in describing President Barack Obama’s sole reliance on using airstrikes to combat the Islamic State (ISIS) — saying it referred to America’s commitment to destroying the terrorist group after it beheaded two American journalists.
In criticizing Obama’s ISIS speech from the White House on Wednesday, Hayden told reporters in a conference call organized by the Atlantic Council: “The reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex: It seems to offer gratification but with very little commitment. We need to be wary of a strategy that puts emphasis on air power and air power alone.” Media, Democratic Party and political racist’s mongers like jackson, sharpton, and holder embraced this position. brenner and clapper just sat there looking as stupid as ever.

President Obama declared to the American people that the United States would “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State by relying heavily on expanded airstrikes in Iraq — and into Syria for the first time. The art of politics has always been one of self-flagellation and sequestered masturbation.
Recall that no problem is ever solved in its original format. Neither the fool nor his administration has ever solved a problem other that stealing billions of dollars from the American for their retirements.
The recent polls in international support show the following:

Nation Use of Bases Money Airstrikes Humanitarian Asistance Weapons Troops Training Stop ISIS Funding Stop Influx of Foreign Fighters
United States Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Britain NA Unknown No Yes Yes Unknown Unknown Yes Yes
France NA Unknown Yes Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes yes
Germany NA Unknown No Yes Yes Unknown Unknown Yes Yes
Saudi Arabia Yes Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes
Turkey No Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Jordan Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes
Egypt Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes
Iraq Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Lebenon Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes
Bahrain Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes
Kuwait Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes
Oman Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes
Qatar Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes
United Arab Emirates Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes Yes

We didn’t lose.
We made it impossible for the Iraqis to continue their fight to win.
This quote is key:

We had all our intelligence capability there. We knew where the enemy was. We were flying drones. We’re tracking them. We have signals intelligence pouring in, eavesdropping on phone conversations and the rest of it. We’re using our counterterrorism forces to bang against these guys. We’re passing that information to the Iraqis so their commandos can do the same,” the general said.

After several years of reduced violence in Iraq, the Americans left.

On a given day in 2011, that screen went blank. The Iraqis went from a significant amount of intelligence on what was taking place, and the screen just went blank,” Gen. Keane said.

Can you imagine how that was for the Iraqis?
Obama did that.
Not Bush.
Not our Generals.
Not our Congress.
Obama did that.

I just wonder if Obama is so obsessed with ”golfing” with all his gay buddies that he simply never thinks anything else through.
Or is he just not happy with killing Muslims.
Or just disengaged.
Or what?

@This one: Well, you can read the post and the associated articles and make a judgment. Or, you can watch Chris Matthews blather on with facts he makes up on the fly and base your conclusions on that. Or, you can bypass Matthews and parrot what Huffpo and other propagandists spew, always taking extreme care to make sure no actual historic facts leak into their narrative.

After the surge, Iraq was stable. Not only did Obama and Biden say so, but the coverage at the time showed it to be so. Obama (who, through community organizing, picked up far greater military knowledge than all the military experts) sacrificed complete victory in order to have a campaign blurb; who cares is we get ISIS in return? Certainly not him, or you, or any other liberal.

Liberals make sure there is always another war to fight.

@This one: NOT just Bush you idiot. How quickly you forget that Bush had a Coalition of 37 countries and at home support of over 70 Democrats!! If you want to talk about “go it alone” our leader and your Black Messiah 0-blama is the one!!

@Nanny G: “We didn’t lose.
We made it impossible for the Iraqis to continue their fight to win.”

This is the same thing that the SOB demo-COMMUNISTS did re Viet Nam — defund it it so it dies on vine — i.e. – pull the rug out from under our allies. The american people are abject idiots to keep voting in these rotten SOBs.

Obama is the only elected official who has actually taken any effective action in response to the threat of ISIL. Congress still hasn’t responded in any meaningful fashion. They haven’t taken a vote to authorize any sort of response, nor have they taken a vote to register displeasure with Obama’s actions.

I’m not exactly certain how it works, but I believe the President asks Congress for a declaration of war or war authority.

@Bill:Greggie is just trying the usual liberal crap of trying to deflect blame away from their current messiah du jour —

I understand that Kerry’s solution to ISIS is to teach ISIS to golf. That should slow them down a little.

@Budvarakbar, #12:

But what was said in post #10 is the truth, isn’t it?

It’s been nearly a month now since James Foley was publicly murdered by ISIL, and Congress still hasn’t done anything. All they’ve done is use the killings as an occasion to condemn the Obama administration, which actually has responded and is continuing to do so. They haven’t even gotten it sufficiently together yet to pass a resolution formally condemning ISIL’s actions.

They’re so locked up in partisan maneuvering that a simple resolution such as H.Res.720, which only expresses collective condemnation while authorizing nothing, is estimated to have only a 9 percent chance getting out of committee and only a 7 percent chance of passage.

The Daily Beast asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) if the absence of a vote reflected congressional acquiescence to the president’s will on war strategy. A vote would be nice, he said, but bringing the issue to Congress could mean all sorts of measures that blunt the president’s response.

“What if [Obama] comes here and [Congress] can’t pass it? That would be a disaster. And what if you put so many conditions on it that it makes any military operations ineffective? That’s what I worry about,” the senator said. “I think the president has an abundant amount of authority to conduct operations. It would be good to have Congress on board…if Congress doesn’t like what he’s doing, we can cut the money off.”

Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, cited hawkish former senator Joe Lieberman’s column last week in The Wall Street Journal arguing that the president has sufficient authority to act without Congress.

“[Lieberman] tends to side with the president,” Feinstein said, “which I am now beginning to side with, that [a vote] is not necessary, and I don’t think we need to do it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/08/weird-congressional-alliances-are-forming-over-isis.html
Notice the title?
WEIRD alliances are forming over ISIS.
It is Democrats, the dovish ones in particular, who could scuttle Congressional approval for Obama’s actions on ISIS.
Not Republicans.
So, call your Dem Congressman and tell him to vote for authorization for Obama, if you want that.
Most Republicans are on board.
And Dems who are ”in the know,” like Sen. Diane Feinstien are, too.

@Greg: Greggie, it’s Slimy Harry Reid in charge of the Senate!! Tell me why he hasn’t done anything.

@Budvarakbar: Greggie has real problems with reality!! He is living in the past because his Black Messiah has so ruined the present and sadly the future!!

@Greg: Most of that month the congress was “out of town” – on a scheduled RECESS. Your messiah did NOT respond until AFTER he was pressured and ‘given’ the go-ahead — ref Nanny’s post –

Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, cited hawkish former senator Joe Lieberman’s column last week in The Wall Street Journal arguing that the president has sufficient authority to act without Congress.

“[Lieberman] tends to side with the president,” Feinstein said, “which I am now beginning to side with, that [a vote] is not necessary, and I don’t think we need to do it.

@Budvarakbar, #18:

It’s probably fortunate that the Executive Branch doesn’t work Congress’ hours or take month-long recesses. The House and Senate are each scheduled to be in session a total of 113 days this year.

@Greg:

It’s probably fortunate that the Executive Branch doesn’t work Congress’ hours or take month-long recesses. The House and Senate are each scheduled to be in session a total of 113 days this year.

We are even more fortunate that everyone in Congress is not so transparently callous as to give a speech about an American being beheaded by terrorists then, less than an hour later, be out on the golf course laughing and joking.

@Bill: This was actually in the form of a question. I know from history that “the President asked for a declaration of war” has been written; do I have that right?

@Greg: That is because he is the only elected official who had that responsibility. ISIL was not present during the bush administration, but you lefties will find some way to blame him.

@Greg: No, the administration branch just goes golfing most every day!

@Bill, #20:

Most people realize the right’s obsession with Obama’s golf is a transparent reaction to criticism leveled at George W Bush, who first claimed to have given golf up out of respect for the families of military personnel in Iraq, and who was then seen playing in a video clip a couple of months later. Obama never made such a claim. For most people, a picture of Obama with a golf club is nothing more than a picture of Obama with a golf club. The game probably provides him with much needed relief from the stresses of the Oval Office. Anyone who thinks there are none, and that regular diversions from them aren’t needed, is totally clueless. That’s as true of the Obama presidency as it was of the Bush presidency.

Do you know why Bush administration keeps coming up? Because people on the right keep bringing him up.

@Greg: No, people on the left keep blaming Bush for Obama’s ignorance. Show us the Bush golfing clip!

@Greg:

Most people realize the right’s obsession with Obama’s golf is a transparent reaction to criticism leveled at George W Bush, who first claimed to have given golf up out of respect for the families of military personnel in Iraq, and who was then seen playing in a video clip a couple of months later.

Well, then, Greggie, since you are an expert at all things to dislike about George W. Bush, why don’t you provide us with a link to that video? Or could it be. that given the Deceit Department of the Left Wing tried to push that meme when George W. was actually NOT playing golf, but simply riding in a golf cart with his father? But I am sure you will be more than happy to prove me wrong.

Do you know why Bush administration keeps coming up? Because people on the right keep bringing him up.

No, it’s because the cowardly weasel current residing at 1600 Penn. Ave wants to blame the previous administration for all his own ineptness.

@Randy, #24:

I didn’t post the video link or Bush’s claim to have given golf up because it’s provocative and I’m weary of the entire ridiculous Bush/Obama/golf discussion. They’re very easy to find online.

@retire05, #25:

No, it’s because the cowardly…

You, on the other hand, are deliberately trying to provoke angry responses, to give yourself an opportunity to vent. Maybe you should take up golf as an outlet.

@Greg: Maybe because there isn’t one! Post it and I will not be able to call you al liar. Fail to post it and you are a liar.

@Randy, #27:

Fine. Have it your way.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/countdown/24657636#24657636

I have absolutely nothing more to say about this. It’s over. It’s done. It’s history. So is Keith Olbermann as a political commentator. He was booted from NSNBC and has since gone back to sports commentary. His level of anger at George W Bush does not reflect my own. It never did. Remembering the story does make criticism of Obama’s golf seem a bit ironic and ridiculous, however.

@Greg:

Bush played golf 26 times while in office.

Obama is at almost 200 games in 68 months. You do the math.

@retire05, #29:

You do the math.

My God. Nearly 3 times per month. It almost sounds as if he’s getting weekly exercise. Although if that’s all he’s getting, it’s nowhere near enough.

@Greg: Gee, Greg, I know how you want to drop the subject (after you brought it up), but we just can’t let the discussion end on a lie.

Mr. Bush played 24 rounds of golf during his first term, with the last being on Oct. 13, 2003.

President Bush later explained that he stopped playing golf out of respect for the families of Americans killed in the war in Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-w-bush-obama-doesnt-deserve-criticism-for-golf-outings/

See, the thing about Keith Olbermann (“bathtub boy”) is that he is a left wing, liberal zealot and, as such, does not mind lying to lend support to the dialogue that the left has invented. Here, you see it, presented by CBS (not necessarily a friend of Bush… see Dan Rather) that Bush quit playing golf AFTER October 13.

Do you know why Bush administration keeps coming up? Because people on the right keep bringing him up.

Take note of the post by This one, #3. No, Greg, you on the left keep reinforcing (solely in your own minds, for no one else believes it any more, given the extensive example of personal failure Obama has presented) the lie that every one of Obama’s many, many failures and bungles is Bush’s fault. Obama has been President for 6 years; the results are his.

And Obama brought about the ISIS surge by stripping Iraq of US troops.

@Bill, #31:

Gee, Greg, I know how you want to drop the subject (after you brought it up), but we just can’t let the discussion end on a lie.

I didn’t bring golf up. You did, in Post #20, followed quickly by someone else in post #22. I’m sick of hearing about it.

Obama’s got his hands full dealing with Democrat(ic)s.
Democrats votes will be needed for passage of Obama´s request to arm Syrian rebels in the fight against Islamic State militants.
Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) opposes the resolution. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-congress-islamic-state-vote-20140916-story.html#page=1
Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, said spending $500 million to provide weapons to groups in Syria that are fighting both ISIS and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will backfire. “At the end of the day, most of the arms that we give to people are used against us.” http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/16/politics/manchin-syria-vote/index.html?hpt=po_c1

@This one: wow wingnuts again coming from piss one,you are a one trick pony piss one

Finally, some bipartisan Congressional support on something.

@Greg: Greggie, over 80+ Democrats in the House voted against 0-blama and his strategy. Are they correct to vote NO??

@Common+Sense, #36:

I think each was correct to vote in accordance with his or her own conscience. It would be nice to believe that they all did so with an election less than 2 months away, but it would also be naive.

We can’t really know with certainty what sort of problem ISIL’s opponents might eventually turn into, but there’s very little question about what ISIL already is. Once in a while we catch a glimpse of evil that seems to be purely for it’s own sake, masquerading as some sort of purpose or cause. I think that might be what we’ve got here. The other thing that can be noted about this particular brand of homicidal insanity is that it’s obviously contagious.

@Greg: Greggie, lots of rhetoric but which would YOU side with 0-blama or the 80+ Democrats who said NO?? Simple question really, just looking for an answer.

I thought that was obvious. I believe the proper vote was yes.

I’m aware of the uncertainties and dangers involved, but I think failing to act at a critical moment is a greater long-term danger. ISIL needs to be damaged to a point where it becomes vulnerable to its regional enemies. The United States doesn’t have to take on full responsibility for destroying ISIL. It only has to help turn the tide against them. If the world lets these lunatics become firmly established there will be hell to pay. They’ve made that clear by their actions.

@Greg: WE are in agreement. What if the strategy requires additional resources like boots on the ground to be successful?? Still in agreement??

Syrian factions, the Iranians, the Iraqis, and the Kurds have a compelling reason to provide ground forces. I think U.S. boots on the ground in numbers that would represent a significant combat force would be an error of enormous proportion. We’ve been there before. We’re still trying to extricate ourselves. The region is a black hole. To my thinking the best approach is to tip the balance when necessary, risking as little as possible to do so.

@Greg: I agree that those forces you have listed are the BEST option. What if with all these forces Obama says American Boots Will still be required to complete the strategy he has currently proposed. Would you be in agreement? Easy question but difficult answer but IF you had to either support the President or say sorry NO US boots what would be your answer??

@Common+Sense: Boots ARE on the ground. We already have almost 10% of the troops there that the military advisers said LEAVE there. Today, the White House was trying desperately to avoid defining what was there and what would constituted them being defined as being “in combat”.

It should be pointed out that Congress is not coming around to seeing things like Obama; Obama is coming around to admitting that the way the war on terror WAS fought is how it HAS to be fought. “Absolutely NO boots on the ground” is going to go into the “you can keep your doctor” column, really soon.

@Common+Sense, #42:

No, I would not agree.

I could agree with the short-term insertion of specifically purposed special operations and rescue teams, military advisers and training personnel, etc. That’s all pretty much a given, and you do have to commit to protecting such people and getting them out if necessary. If we can’t make that commitment, we have no business sending anyone in at all.

I would object to putting troops on the ground in significant numbers to take direct part in a ground war as a combat force. That, in my opinion, is simply unacceptable. It’s obvious where that leads. We’ve done it before.

@Greg: Thanks for the comeback. Problem is Greg, War or call it something else is never nice an clean. Obama’s strategy is not clear on forces at all and there is no clear agreement between best military advice and what Obama proposes on this point. If Obama was honest with America he would NOT say NO US Boots on the Ground “period”. This position could easily be like the lie he told America with respect too Obamacare when he said if you like your doctor and/or health insurance you can keep them “period”. He had to admit he lied and apologize to millions of Americans on this point. If Obama where honest on his military strategy he would NOT say NO boots “period”. Honesty is what Obama fails at and he does so to keep his constituents from rebelling on him. Even now 80+ Democrats voted against his military strategy and many for the same political reasons. If American ground troops would be needed to wipe out ISIS versus failure because we didn’t send them, I would choose troops and win the War rather than say sorry we failed so let’s forget it and leave the territory in an even bigger mess. Obama did that with Iraq and now we have ISIS!!

@Common+Sense:
You’ve hit on why Obama is lying about ”no boots on the ground,” just like he lied about ”if you like your doctor….”
There’s an election coming.
Politics is far more important to Obama than policy.
In fact, if you watch Obama get fired up, it is always about politics, those evil Republicans.
He couldn’t even be sincerely sad about the beheading death of an American.
He went through the motions but belied his real feelings with his broad grins to his boy toys at the golf course less than 15 minutes later.

@Nanny+G: The only reason Obama even told America about a so called “strategy” is the beheadings and how America finally realized how stunning his lack of leadership was!! He read from his teleprompter as he was dragged to it kicking and screaming. The only real Wars he knows are fake and political!! I am guessing the 80+ Democrats who voted against him in the House did so for political reasons or as Obama have NO clue what is happening outside of their Mansion gates!! My point with Greg is that Democrats have NO clue on how to win a real War because they have NO clue what a military strategy looks like or the fact that our enemies don’t follow the liberal wacko play book and therefore you MUST allow for variations and changes!! To say NO Boots is just plain stupid and political!!