Obama and A-stan

[Scout26]

While lying in pre-op today, I got a chance to catch most of Obama's speech on A-stan.  Apparently the whole Iraq/Syria/ISIS/Russia/Turkey blackhole created by the vacuum he left behind when we pulled out has convinced some/many/most of his staff that it would be really bad "optics" to do the sequel in A-stan, despite all his campaign promises to end that war also.

He looked really, really, really pissed that reality is intruding on his dream to hobble/dismantle this country.

[tokugawa]

By the time he is done, our guys in Afghanistan are likely to be doing a version of Elphinstone's retreat from Kabul circa 1842. He is probably salivating at being able to trap them there rather than get them out.

 
 
 

 

[Perd Hapley]

It's OK - he assured us that he doesn't believe in the concept of endless war.

Sort of like I don't believe in the concept of eating defenseless animals (while scarfing down a Paunchburger).


Idiot FOX news anchor, on the top-of-the-hour radio news break said he "can't keep his campaign promise."  Republicans lie, apparently, but Democrats "can't."

[brimic]

By the time he is done, our guys in Afghanistan are likely to be doing a version of Elphinstone's retreat from Kabul circa 1842. He is probably salivating at being able to trap them there rather than get them out.

 
 
 

 

My biggest worry would be a 'financial crisis' hits us and he leaves the troops behind and on their own.

[dogmush]

My biggest worry would be a 'financial crisis' hits us and he leaves the troops behind and on their own.

I've read that book

[RevDisk]

By the time he is done, our guys in Afghanistan are likely to be doing a version of Elphinstone's retreat from Kabul circa 1842. He is probably salivating at being able to trap them there rather than get them out.

Uhm, why would you think that? I'm honestly curious of the reasoning?

Because intentionally trap and strand a force overseas, and you're looking at a significant loss of political will. The Dems would probably be screaming louder for impeachment than the Republicans, otherwise they'd be decimated in the next election. But you'd need a Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army and Joint Chiefs to go along.

Unintentionally, yeah, could happen. Benghazi for example. Clinton deserved to be sacked for that, but I do have to say, America did well even if it was ignored. We killed a hundred attackers for four of own our people. 1:25 kill ratio is not bad. I obviously prefer our ratio to be closer to a couple hundred to one, but not bad for lack of support. Also, we sent in Delta to capture (successfully) the person in charge of the attacks, Ahmed Abu Khattala.

[Ben]

So are any of the usual dem mouthpieces going after him for reneging on "mission accomplished"?

[Scout26]

Dennis Kucinich was on Fox aftyer the speech going after him for breaking his pledge/promise.

[TechMan]

Dennis Kucinich was on Fox aftyer the speech going after him for breaking his pledge/promise.

That nut job....makes me ashamed of being an Ohioan.

[tokugawa]

Uhm, why would you think that? I'm honestly curious of the reasoning?

Because intentionally trap and strand a force overseas, and you're looking at a significant loss of political will. The Dems would probably be screaming louder for impeachment than the Republicans, otherwise they'd be decimated in the next election. But you'd need a Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army and Joint Chiefs to go along.

Unintentionally, yeah, could happen. Benghazi for example. Clinton deserved to be sacked for that, but I do have to say, America did well even if it was ignored. We killed a hundred attackers for four of own our people. 1:25 kill ratio is not bad. I obviously prefer our ratio to be closer to a couple hundred to one, but not bad for lack of support. Also, we sent in Delta to capture (successfully) the person in charge of the attacks, Ahmed Abu Khattala.

  He is not going to SAY or ACT like it was intentional- it will be "unexpected" or 'unfortunate" or something- this is not a guy who accepts responsibility.
  Obama HATES every traditional aspect of American - examples abound. Everything he has done has hurt the USA and I see no reason he will stop now. He has replaced a lot of top military with his yes men. The Democrats object? You have got to be kidding me- The 50% percent of Democrats who actually think about issues would not give a hoot. They hate traditional America also. Everything we represent is evil to them. I have ASKED them at parties if they could name one thing, just one, that this country has ever done right and they can't answer it! The other 50% simply won't care, about anything at all, except that their EBT cards keep working.

 you don't "fundamentally transform" something that you love. Obama does not have Americas best interests at heart.  Just to list the headings of the examples, would take pages.

[Kingcreek]

 Sec of Sates Hillary Clinton then John Kerry by way of Obama. Regardless, it is all George Bush's fault.

[wmenorr67]

The only reason we "left" Iraq is because their government didn't want to sign a Status of Forces Agreement to allow us to continue doing business as usual w/out fear of our forces being subject to Iraqi courts.

If Karzai was still in power we would've been gone from Afghanistan already.  The current A-stan president is the one asking us to stay.

[Phantom Warrior]

The only reason we "left" Iraq is because their government didn't want to sign a Status of Forces Agreement to allow us to continue doing business as usual w/out fear of our forces being subject to Iraqi courts.

If Karzai was still in power we would've been gone from Afghanistan already.  The current A-stan president is the one asking us to stay.

This bears repeating a hundred times over.  Everyone jumps on Obama for pulling out or not trying hard enough to extend the SOFA.  In 2008 the US said "We'll stay in Iraq if you give USF immunity from Iraqi courts."  Iraq said "Nope, we won't give you immunity."  An extension to the SOFA was not negotiated, our legal authorization to be there ended, and we left.  If we are going to treat Iraq like a sovereign nation we have to leave when they tell us to.

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to subject USF to the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts?  Because to stay longer in Iraq that is something we would have had to accept.

Also, what good would staying in Iraq have really done?  The seeds of the current situation with ISIS were sown the minute we deposed Saddam Hussein's government in 2003.  With the Shiites in charge the Sunnis were mistreated and marginalized.  The US tried to get everyone to work together for eight years.  Yet two short years after we left the Sunnis were so fed up with it that they decided it was better to support, or at least not oppose, ISIS than support their "own" government.

If we could smart bomb every ISIS fighter in existence the problems between the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq would still be there.  This is why I get so frustrated with the argument that we need to leave "enough troops" there "until the job is done."  (I'm looking at you, John McCain.)  I think that is Obamacare for Republicans.  We have no idea what the numbers are or how it will work but just trust us that it is absolutely important that we do it.

 I'll tell you what I think some of those number are.  Probably at least 100,000 troops.  Ten or twenty or thirty thousand is barely enough to support and sustain those forces and conduct some dog and pony show training and some special operations stuff on the side.  To have any affect on the government and culture of Iraq, which is what really needs to change, there need to be enough combat units in theater to train, partner with, and mentor the Iraq forces and political leadership.  We were there almost a decade without changing anything.  The length of that commitment would probably need to be at least twenty years.  If not thirty or more.  Long enough to try and raise up a generation into power that isn't solely committed to sectarianism and factionalism.  Given the fact many of these grievances go back for centuries I'm not optimistic it could be done that quickly or that success would be guaranteed.

To make any meaningful change in Iraq that is the kind of commitment we would be looking at.  Anything less than that is a waste of time, money, and lives.  And if we aren't willing to commit to that than the sooner we get out and let them decide they want to change things on their own, the better.

[TommyGunn]

This bears repeating a hundred times over.  Everyone jumps on Obama for pulling out or not trying hard enough to extend the SOFA.  In 2008 the US said "We'll stay in Iraq if you give USF immunity from Iraqi courts."  Iraq said "Nope, we won't give you immunity."  An extension to the SOFA was not negotiated, our legal authorization to be there ended, and we left.  If we are going to treat Iraq like a sovereign nation we have to leave when they tell us to.

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to subject USF to the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts?  Because to stay longer in Iraq that is something we would have had to accept.

Also, what good would staying in Iraq have really done?  The seeds of the current situation with ISIS were sown the minute we deposed Saddam Hussein's government in 2003.  With the Shiites in charge the Sunnis were mistreated and marginalized.  The US tried to get everyone to work together for eight years.  Yet two short years after we left the Sunnis were so fed up with it that they decided it was better to support, or at least not oppose, ISIS than support their "own" government.

If we could smart bomb every ISIS fighter in existence the problems between the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq would still be there.  This is why I get so frustrated with the argument that we need to leave "enough troops" there "until the job is done."  (I'm looking at you, John McCain.)  I think that is Obamacare for Republicans.  We have no idea what the numbers are or how it will work but just trust us that it is absolutely important that we do it.

 I'll tell you what I think some of those number are.  Probably at least 100,000 troops.  Ten or twenty or thirty thousand is barely enough to support and sustain those forces and conduct some dog and pony show training and some special operations stuff on the side.  To have any affect on the government and culture of Iraq, which is what really needs to change, there need to be enough combat units in theater to train, partner with, and mentor the Iraq forces and political leadership.  We were there almost a decade without changing anything.  The length of that commitment would probably need to be at least twenty years.  If not thirty or more.  Long enough to try and raise up a generation into power that isn't solely committed to sectarianism and factionalism.  Given the fact many of these grievances go back for centuries I'm not optimistic it could be done that quickly or that success would be guaranteed.

To make any meaningful change in Iraq that is the kind of commitment we would be looking at.  Anything less than that is a waste of time, money, and lives.  And if we aren't willing to commit to that than the sooner we get out and let them decide they want to change things on their own, the better.

Well, something ELSE that bears repeating a hundred times over: OBAMA DID NOT TRY HARD ENOUGH TO EXTEND SOFA; HE SHOULD HAVE TWISTED IRAQI ARMS A LOT HARDER.

The situation in Iraq was pretty crappy, but after Bush upped the force we finally had it nearly controlled.  Then in comes Obama and he kicks the legs out from beneath the Iraqis by bringing the troops out.....and leaves a power vacuum for Isis and others to fill.
Yeah, I lay it on Obama.
I don't have to lay it on Bush* for getting us into that mess in the first place, because so many others do that aptly enough for me!



eta:  If you really want to go full retard and use nicknames, then I can go full retard and swing for the fences with the banschwerk, capiche'?


Ooooookaaayyyy .... but aren't we ssssenssssitive .....

[tokugawa]

Used to be, when a one country conquered another country, they got to make the rules.
 Imagine MacArthur letting Hirohito tell him how it was gonna be?  We have just gone soft. 

[Jamisjockey]

The only reason we "left" Iraq is because their government didn't want to sign a Status of Forces Agreement to allow us to continue doing business as usual w/out fear of our forces being subject to Iraqi courts.

If Karzai was still in power we would've been gone from Afghanistan already.  The current A-stan president is the one asking us to stay.

All this.

And FTR, I supported Obama wanting to pull us from both, and the closing of Gitmo.

[wmenorr67]

Well, something ELSE that bears repeating a hundred times over: OBAMA DID NOT TRY HARD ENOUGH TO EXTEND SOFA; HE SHOULD HAVE TWISTED IRAQI ARMS A LOT HARDER.

The situation in Iraq was pretty crappy, but after Bush upped the force we finally had it nearly controlled.  Then in comes Obama and he kicks the legs out from beneath the Iraqis by bringing the troops out.....and leaves a power vacuum for Isis and others to fill.
Yeah, I lay it on Obama.
I don't have to lay it on Bush* for getting us into that mess in the first place, because so many others do that aptly enough for me!



eta:  If you really want to go full retard and use nicknames, then I can go full retard and swing for the fences with the banschwerk, capiche'?


Ooooookaaayyyy .... but aren't we ssssenssssitive .....

I don't blame Obama one bit on not twisting arms.  As Phantom stated we didn't/don't have the troop strength, nor does the American people have the intestinal fortitude to have kept 100K plus troops in Iraq for the next 30 plus years.  We've been in Korea now with just under 30K for the past 60 plus and looking to decrease those numbers.

[roo_ster]

No amount of training by western trainers from a decent western civ country is going to turn arabs into an effective western-style military for a non-tyrannical multi-ethnic country.

Arabs suck as troops in a western-style army.  A "democratic" non-tyrannical gov't will never get them to do anything but run off when the going gets tough.  A tyrannical, despotic, horrifically cruel regime, OTOH, can get some minimal effectiveness via threat of death and/or torture of the soldier or his family.

Don't matter how long we stayed.

[Andiron]

No amount of training by western trainers from a decent western civ country is going to turn arabs into an effective western-style military for a non-tyrannical multi-ethnic country.

Arabs suck as troops in a western-style army.  A "democratic" non-tyrannical gov't will never get them to do anything but run off when the going gets tough.  A tyrannical, despotic, horrifically cruel regime, OTOH, can get some minimal effectiveness via threat of death and/or torture of the soldier or his family.

Don't matter how long we stayed.

This,  in spades.  And the vast majority of Americans are either completely ignorant of the culture gap or refuse to acknowledge it because of political bias*.

 (*don't  you dare point out that differences exist, and that Arab/muslim culture is inferior!)

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

No amount of training by western trainers from a decent western civ country is going to turn arabs into an effective western-style military for a non-tyrannical multi-ethnic country.

Arabs suck as troops in a western-style army.  A "democratic" non-tyrannical gov't will never get them to do anything but run off when the going gets tough.  A tyrannical, despotic, horrifically cruel regime, OTOH, can get some minimal effectiveness via threat of death and/or torture of the soldier or his family.

Don't matter how long we stayed.

Unpleasant truth is true


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MechAg94]

I don't blame Obama one bit on not twisting arms.  As Phantom stated we didn't/don't have the troop strength, nor does the American people have the intestinal fortitude to have kept 100K plus troops in Iraq for the next 30 plus years.  We've been in Korea now with just under 30K for the past 60 plus and looking to decrease those numbers.

As stated above, Americans not wanting to occupy other countries long term is NOT lack of "intestinal fortitude".  Long term occupation of other countries is just not something we ought to be doing unless we plan to absorb them into the US.  What would we accomplish in 15 years of occupation that was not accomplished in 10 years?  Nothing that is worth what we are paying.  I think we would have been better off just rolling through Iraq, wiping out everything we could, and rolling right back out.  Who cares if Saddam was still in power or not.  All those lives, those injured and disabled soldiers, was it worth it?

If we have to threaten military force, it should just be to lay waste to that country and to hell with them.  Occupation should not be the default plan.  With the politics and ROE's, there is little we will accomplish no matter the location.

[Scout26]

Last I checked we still have troops in Germany, Japan, and Korea (to name a few), and they have been there since 1945.  It's only been within the last 5 years that we no longer patrol any part of the Korean DMZ and have turned over all the "frontline" duty to the ROK's.

Then again, we were dealing with homogeneous societies with more then a passing experience with parliamentary democracies (Not so much in Korea, but they have come a long, long, long way from Syngman Rhee.)

Again, America can do the "occupation thing", but trying to impose it on a tribal based culture in country drawn with arbitrary borders, not taking into account religious and tribal lines was a recipe for failure, unless we were willing to stay there and break heads for several hundreds of years.   

What should have been done was to break Iraq into 3 parts and train each to be strong enough to protect, but not so strong as to invade each other/neighbors.

[MechAg94]

Last I checked we still have troops in Germany, Japan, and Korea (to name a few), and they have been there since 1945.  It's only been within the last 5 years that we no longer patrol any part of the Korean DMZ and have turned over all the "frontline" duty to the ROK's.

Then again, we were dealing with homogeneous societies with more then a passing experience with parliamentary democracies (Not so much in Korea, but they have come a long, long, long way from Syngman Rhee.)

Again, America can do the "occupation thing", but trying to impose it on a tribal based culture in country drawn with arbitrary borders, not taking into account religious and tribal lines was a recipe for failure, unless we were willing to stay there and break heads for several hundreds of years.   

What should have been done was to break Iraq into 3 parts and train each to be strong enough to protect, but not so strong as to invade each other/neighbors.

We only have basing rights in Germany and Japan.  We were in South Korea to help them repel a foreign invasion.  That is a far cry from what we are doing in the Middle East and Afghanistan.  The closest comparrison I can think of is the Philippines.  After the Spanish American War, we sent 5000 troops there to occupy the place.  After quite some effort, they finally quieted the rebels there which were also Muslims I believe.  They are still having issues with those people.  If memory serves, they quieted those rebels eventually by fighting them and killing them. 

[RevDisk]

I don't blame Obama one bit on not twisting arms.  As Phantom stated we didn't/don't have the troop strength, nor does the American people have the intestinal fortitude to have kept 100K plus troops in Iraq for the next 30 plus years.  We've been in Korea now with just under 30K for the past 60 plus and looking to decrease those numbers.

Meh, we have the intestinal fortitude. As you say, Korea, 60 years. Difference is, South Koreans are civilized and willing to work with us. Rooster is correct, but I'd say even more. We dumped probably near a trillion dollars of our wealth into Iraq. For very, very, very little gain. We would have been better off carpet bombing every major Iraq refinery/base/bunker/etc, cutting every American a check for four grand and calling it a day. On the other hand, Korea is a relatively decent ally. The money we spent in Korea has allowed 50 million people to grow into a world class economy that is a beacon of civilization.

Keeping 100K troops in Iraq for 30 plus years wouldn't make enough difference unless we either a) became as brutal as Saddam or b) had significantly better political and military leadership on the ground. Neither is likely to happen. Hell, if I was the POTUS and Iraq told us to get out (fair enough), I would have left not a scrap of US material in their hands. I'd store it in Kurdistan and accept their word that they'd use it responsibly. Not that the Kurds are perfect, they have a good number of communist terrorists in their ranks, but they're still better than any other ally we have in the Middle East considering the number of times we screwed them over.

The key to winning wars is to only get into wars you can actually win. Or set milestones you can achieve. I sincerely hope the Bush administration were the evil rampaging profiteers a lot of people paint them. Because the alternative is that they were dumber than a box of hammers to think we could turn Iraq into a western democracy, when you have arbitrary borders and century old ethnic warfare issues. As scout pointed out, our best chance of that impossible task would have been to split the country into three countries on the ground. Forcibly move people to their respective zones and shoot anyone crossing the lines. That I doubt we would have had the guts to do, and that's probably a good thing.


For countries like Iraq, it's best to kill the people that piss us off and leave. If and when the next group of horrible warlords come along, kill them as well. Repeat until the situation works itself out.

[Blakenzy]

Shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Period.

but, but WMD's!!! 

But seriously, gaining enough support to invade Iraq relied heavily on public ignorance and the inability (or unwillingness) of the American public to distinguish between Afghanistan, people from Saudi Arabia and Iraq. They almost, almost managed to sneak in Iran as well.

Now since people have grown wiser and understand that there are actually differences between countries and nations in that region, and no longer blindly support ambitious military adventures for BS reasons, Dear Government is forced to use mercenaries "private military contractors" and terrorist organizations "freedom fighters" to invade sovereign nations "implement foreign policy" over yonder. I believe the result of which is what we are seeing at this moment with this whole ISIS debacle. Gaddafi called it, "these aren't freedom fighters, they are MFing Al Quaeda!"

And now things get interesting because we have actual WMD card carrying countries (Russia and perhaps China?) directly involved in the mix.