Another Obama failure.
After 9 years of American sacrifice in Iraq Obama has announced he will withdraw ALL our troops from the country. He tried to frame it as a campaign promise from 2008 but now we know that isn’t the reason. The reason is due to his complete failure to negotiate with the Iraqi’s:
President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.
And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail.
…This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.
Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.
Because of this failure we will not be allowed a orderly transition, which threatens the sacrifice made by almost 4,500 American who gave their lives, and the thousands upon thousands who served over there. Not to mentions the billions of dollars spent. Why? Because he couldn’t successfully negotiate with those who still want us there.
Amazing.
But is it just a negotiating failure?
Isn’t there some kind of election coming up soon?
And now with no American presence in Iraq, Iran will have a completely free hand.
If there is one constant of American military history it is that the longer our troops stay in a country the better the prospects of a successful outcome. Think of Germany, Italy, Japan or South Korea. Conversely when U.S. troops rush for the exits hard-won wartime gains can quickly evaporate. Think of the post-Civil War South, post-World War I Germany, post-1933 (and post-1995) Haiti, post-1972 Vietnam, or, more recently, post-1983 Lebanon and post-1993 Somalia.
See author page
Obama doesn’t want a free USA. He has aligned with and apologized to different dictatorships. I believe he wants Iraq to go back the way it was. I can see him apologizing to Iraq some time in the future.
I have to break ranks on this one. The Iraqis want our troops under their jurisdiction for punishment and to that I say FOAD. They’re free BECAUSE of the sacrifice of over 4000 American soldiers.
I WILL NOT support such a a rule. If the Iraqis refuse to to waive that then they deserve the chaos and death that follows. Call me irrational, but I DO think they owe us.
@Hard Right: #2
Iraq is one of many countries that owe us and other countries their freedom. I saw this coming the instant I heard that the Iraqis put in their new constitution that Muslim had to be the national religion. They are still going to be taught that the USA is the Great Satan and needs to be destroyed.
This is the expected outcome of “nation building” fast tracked. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration yielded to international pressure from the left to allow “self government” many, many years too soon. The ONLY way nation building ever had a chance was if the occupied countries were first put into absolute submission, and I don’t mean to some mythological, supernatural creature.
Iraq should never have been allowed to set up a state religion. This whole exercise was supposed to be about America’s strategic interests, not some holly crusade to spread a way of government that few nations seem capable of (lately, I’ve even had doubts about us.).
Now the thug in charge in Afghanistan is openly saying he’d prefer Pakistan to us as an allie, the same Pakistan that, together with Iran, is actively killing our kids who are trying to drag Karzi’s “nation” out of the tenth century.
Once again, we’ve proven, in spades, that the best reward for attacking America, or our interests is utter destruction. . . not new schools. We would have been better off to leave both in ruins and establish a 100 mile free fire zone along the Pakistan and Iraq borders enforced by aircraft and drones (too damned bad we can’t base the weapons in space for this). Having proven the obvious yet again, we will now ignore the lesson and get more of our people killed so as to keep the “moral high ground”. . . perhaps that’s where we can bury another generation of Americans.
Hold up, here.
When the invasion was launched, none of the reasons given included obtaining permanent bases in Iraq. (I supported the war largely with that possibility in mind, but no one in the Bush or Obama administrations ever promised that outcome.) We achieved all the stated objectives.
I do think a base bordering on Syria, Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia would be a good thing for all concerned, but I don’t see how “failure” to secure one means all the sacrifices were in vain. I had hoped Iraq would mature into a secular democracy, and it may. But that’s the Iraqis’ business. They’re free to tend to it. And that was what the war was about.
IRAK being so close to IRAN, which had sent many of their fighter against AMERICAN,
is surely in a top influencal position with the IRAK LEADER AS WELL AS A THREAT , ABOUT WHICH THE MILITARY IN PLACE ARE TELLING IN OTHER WORDS TO NOT OFFEND THEM, THAT they are not strong enough to respond to THE OTHER RADICAL IRAN WHICH NOW DEMAND TO HAVE THE TROOPS OUT,
AND THE AMERICA LEADERSHIP IS PLAYING INTO THEIR HAND.
OR, MIGHT IT BE, THAT THE LAST PHONE CALL FROM OBAMA TO THE IRAN LEADER, FOLLOWING THE FAILED ATTEMPT TO KILL THE ARAB IN THE USA, HAD CONCLUDED TO THE DEAL OF LETTING THE TROOPS OUT ALL AT ONCE TO BE MADE BETWEEN THE 2 CONFIDENTIAL FROM OBAMA?
IN EXCHANGE OF STAYING AWAY FROM THE US IN ELECTION MODE AT THIS TIME WHICH WOULD BE INCONVENIENT FOR
HIM
WHICH WOULD NEVER BE HONORED PAST THIS ELECTION
@Hard Right:
See HR what can do when you lay off the crazy pills!
Nice to have you for once on the RIGHT side.
@Hard Right, you aren’t really “breaking ranks”. Between Curt’s post here, and my GOP sucker punched in this Iraq withdrawal bit, we pretty much have to return that Echo Chamber Blog Site Award of The Year mirror ball… LOL.
What’s really annoying is that the Dems are playing the GOPers like a fiddle on this.
Bees… 5000 trainers are going to do nothing to alter Iraq’s future as an independent nation. And the 40K some odd troops there have only been in assist/advise positions since last year. Iraq’s been holding their own, with us in the background, for over a year.
Time to take the training wheels off the bike and let ’em roll down the road, solo.
MATA
you making sense, IT JUST THAT I hate to see OBAMA undermine the MILITARY’S WORK NEGOTIATIONS WHERE GOING ON SINCE A LONG TIME, AND HE JUST MESS UP THE POSSIBLE DEAL WITH SENDING GOVERNMENT PEOPLE IN THERE giving the pressure, there for discredit what the MILITARY WHERE DOING IN A MORE DIPLOMATIC LONGER DISPLAY ON A SENSITIVE SOLUTION NEEDED
TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN MILITARY ON THE GROUND, WHICH ARE PROTECTING A NUMBER OF IRAKIS BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY AND BULLYED BY THE IRAKI REGIME SAYING AS EXCUSE THAT
those thousands of people are on the list of terrorists in THE UNITED STATES SINCE A LONG TIME, but the MILITARY FOUND THEM NOT TO BE, and in need of protection, by the same US WHO PUT THEM ON THE LIST AND FOUND NOT TERRORIST AT ALL.
BYE
Bees, “government people”… as in the diplomats and ambassadors… will be in Iraq. And they have diplomatic immunity. I believe that number will be about 150 or so.
All of this is about 5000 military personnel, acting as trainers… none of whom will make or break Iraq’s security… and their respective immunity.
Personally, I don’t care an iota if Obama successfully, or unsuccessfully, negotiated their immunity. And I’m extremely pleased that this admin and the military are adamant that no trainers will remain without immunity. As I said, if Iraq finds those trainers so all fired important, they can give us what we want. Or make it on their own.
The GOP and conservatives should be embracing the Bush withdrawal schedule, giving that admin and our military kudos for helping to bring Iraq to the status it is today… willing to stand on their own. And I doubt they think they will crash and burn just because 5000 US trainers don’t stay behind.
@MataHarley:
Well said.
MATA of course they should have the immunity, ,
that was part of their negotiations, they thought where coming to a successful result,
it’s the overlapping of the government envoy, that makes them feel brought a sting in their own negotiation, that is from what CURT ‘S POST, and the military also reject the idea of a closing completly, because they say the need is still there for them.
so I’M on their side of what they think is best to do, and they should be taken at their word,
because they are the experts.
bye
Bees, there was never a hope and a prayer of getting the immunity. That has been made clear thru the months of negotiations. Bestowing the diplomatic privilege on them was also rejected by the Iraqis. So be it… no immunity, no trainers… and still no big deal.
@ Mata
I can’t think of a SOFA anywhere that military personnel don’t fall under the laws of the host country, at least off base. That being said, being subject to the laws of Germany, England, and Japan is much better than those of Iraq.
And believe it or not, Hillary said on Chris Wallaces’ show this morning that the withdrawal was part of the Bush administration negotiations.
True, Aqua… and the Bush-Iraq SOFA also had military under the host country laws, unless on an official military mission, when they were off base. However on the US bases and on missions, they were subject to US laws and justice.
Since, the amount of temporary bases in Iraq would obviously be shaved down, what the Iraqis refuse to allow is the same conditions… that the trainers, on a US mission and on their base, now no longer be under the US laws. Nope… foot goes down here.
Good on Hillary… at least she knows her history. Then again, I doubt there is much lost love between Hill and O’butthead.
MATA yes, they must now be on their own to see the difference by themselves,
the point you bring is exactly, what they deserve, they have forgotten the price of their freedom was paid by the MILITARY, SUCH HEAVY PRICE yes time for them to come back and not look behind at the ones who deserved it but cannot pay, those are the one vulnerable which the braves would like to continue protecting,
but they must leave them behind,
and after so many years the bonding has taken hold on them so braves protectors,
trying to hold on; when they arrive in AMERICA, THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO SHOW SO MUCH LOVE TO THEM, WHICH WILL FEEL MIX EMOTIONS THOSE THEY LEFT BEHIND, AND THOSE THEY DREAMED OF SEEING AGAIN. THEY ARE THE STRENGHT OF THE now so VULNERABLE AMERICA,
AND WE ALL NEED THEIR STRENGHT AND DISCIPLINED BEHAVIOR TO RISE UP TO HIGH POSITIONS,
WHICH THEY HAVE EARNED IN ALL THEIR ENCOUNTER OF OVER THERE,
BYE
MATA WHY WOULD AMERICA TAKE AWAY THE PROTECTION THEY OWE TO MILITARY,
THIS IS INCONCEIVEBLE, EVEN IF THE OTHER COUNTRY DOESN’T GIVE IMMUNITY.
IT REMAINS THAT THE USA MUST FIRST AND FOR ALL PROTECT THE BRAVES EVERY WHERE THEY ARE,
BYE
They don’t, Bees. So on this issue, you have no quarrel with the Obama admin and his military leaders.
MATA
I was reading your comment right after I finish mine,
It seem to me that is what you where saying, bye
MATA,
I see, I read it again, but then what is the problem of wanting immunity from the IRAK,
what does it give the MILITARY, MORE THAN THEY HAVE FROM THE PROTECTION
OF THE US?
I did confuse the immunity THEY WANT with the protection of the USA. BEING THE SAME THING
BYE
Bees, if a soldier in Iraq was off base, not on a military mission, and committed a crime, he was always going to be subject to Iraq laws. But to allow no immunity for soldiers who are off (or on) a base in Iraq while doing a military assignment, the Iraqis could try our soldiers for war crimes, murder etc. Right now, if the Iraqis accused a soldier of war crimes while he was on duty while off base, the US laws step in and he is investigated/tried by our military.
The Iraqis do not want to grant our military trainers immunity anywhere, and they don’t want them granted diplomatic status because of the US diplomat in Pakistan who killed two Pakistanis. As it is, Pakistan is refusing to hand that diplomat over to the US, as his privileges normally allow. Thus the Iraqis playing hardball on any American in their country post the SOFA agreement must be subject first and foremost to their laws.
MATA, thank you, now I understand better, and the right thing is
to protect them in foreign COUNTRIES FOR SURE, appreciate your patient explanation,
and I don’t think that I am the only one who didn’t know that danger for them, if the demand was not met.
bye
This is a new age: Where mercenaries, contractors, and covert CIA special ops are going to take the lead in fighting wars around the world. If you don’t think Obama has made arrangements of this in Iraq, you’re just behind the times.
Lookie here… libzero has stumbled upon a cute new slogan talking point, and is busy spreading it around…
I bet you forward every bad joke you get in your email box too, right? Which, of course, makes you nothing more than a spammer of junk.
WHY WOULD A N AMERICAN DIPLOMAT SHOOT THOSE PAKISTANYS?
OF CURSE IT IS FOR NOT BEING TAKEN HOSTAGE OR BEING IN DANGER FROM THE 2 PAKISTANYS GETTING TOO CLOSE FOR HIS COMFORTABLE ZONE, AND NOT BACKING UP FROM HIS DEMAND
BACK UP, THE DIPLOMAT WAS SURELY IN DANGER FOR HIS LIFE,
AND he was already in a warzone, so , it was his life or th other side of the medal which he refuse to take the chance on,
PAKISTAN , BY REFUSING TO RELEASE THIS DIPLOMAT are not complying on the rules of the war
to protect the soldiers and the civiliens, so that mean they are ennemies of USA, until
they release the diplomat which surely expect the USA government to do what is required to get him out of there,