TQ - in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 USA rained fire on Afghanistan, not Iraq. I was referring to that, and not Gulf War 2. In all the years that Bush was President post-9/11 there were hardly any terror attacks in the USA. Can't say the same about Obama.
In every conflict the USA has been involved in, there have been local players who collaborated with them. They just took advantage of the volatile situation, or different aspirations of a large part of the populace.Nevertheless, it is obvious that USA could have done a much better job with the way they went about "spreading Democracy" in all those countries they invaded in the last 20 years or so. Obama needs to share the blame for it along with Bush.
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [/QUOTE] And the Bush administration.
By medding in middle eastern affairs (without UN approval, no less), they created ISIS. [/QUOTE]
.........
The Anbar Awakening in 2007 had the Sunnis in Iraq rebelling successfully against Al Qaeda. Isis was created on Obama's watch after he took office in 2008.
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [/QUOTE] And the Bush administration.
By medding in middle eastern affairs (without UN approval, no less), they created ISIS. [/QUOTE]
.........
The Anbar Awakening in 2007 had the Sunnis in Iraq rebelling successfully against Al Qaeda. Isis was created on Obama's watch after he took office in 2008.[/QUOTE]
Holy revisionist history.
The formation of ISIS was a slow and steady progression over the last 15 years. Partisan rhetoric doesn't suddenly change that.
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]The Real Wizard wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [/QUOTE] And the Bush administration.
By medding in middle eastern affairs (without UN approval, no less), they created ISIS. [/QUOTE]
.........
The Anbar Awakening in 2007 had the Sunnis in Iraq rebelling successfully against Al Qaeda. Isis was created on Obama's watch after he took office in 2008.[/QUOTE]
Holy revisionist history.
The formation of ISIS was a slow and steady progression over the last 15 years. Partisan rhetoric doesn't suddenly change that.[/QUOTE]
...
I Googled "Anbar awakening US withdrawal" and found a few lamestream articles. Unfortunately, none were from info wars or Fox News - LOL
In 2010, Al Qaida was on the run with only a few true believers scattered throughout Iraq.
In 2011, Obama withdrew from Iraq, and Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, free from American influence, proceeded with widespread repression of the Iraqi Sunni's.
"The second setback for al-Qaida in Iraq was "the surge" beginning in January 2007, when President George W. Bush increased the number of troops across Iraq when American popular opinion called for a pullout from the conflict. This new military offensive capitalized on the political success of the Anbar Awakening and reinforced it across the country. Masri and his organization would continue to fight coalition troops and terrorize Iraqis for three more years. But by the time of his death in 2010, the coalition's price tag on Masri's head had dropped from $5 million to a paltry $100,000. Al-Qaida in Iraq was on the run, with only a few true believers scattered throughout the country.
Iraqi Prime Minister [url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics-government/government/nouri-maliki-PEPLT007577-topic.html]Nouri al-Maliki[/url], however, would wreck the atmosphere of inclusiveness we had worked so painstakingly to create. The day after the U.S. withdrawal in December 2011, Maliki repeated the worst of the CPA's actions and began alienating the Sunni minority by trumping up charges against Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, purging competent Sunni leaders from the military and government positions and sending the Iraqi Army into Anbar province to kill "terrorists" - which by his definition meant Sunnis. The rise of the Islamic State is directly attributable to Maliki's ill-fated decisions during this period."
"Late in the evening of Sunday, January 18, an eleven-member delegation of tribal leaders from Iraq’s western Anbar Province arrived in Washington, D.C. Just as their plane was touching down, Islamic State units back in Iraq attacked the compound of one of the delegation’s senior leaders, Sheik Ahmed Abu Risha, killing nine Iraqi police officers and wounding 28 of the sheik’s guards. A nearby Iraqi military unit failed to respond to repeated calls for help. The brutal attack underscored the purpose of the Anbar delegation’s visit: The tribal leaders believed that they could defeat the Islamic State—but only if the Obama administration would agree to ship them weapons directly, bypassing Iraq’s untrustworthy Ministry of Defense."
"The groundwork for today's problems began almost as soon as that last American convoy left in 2011. Sunni lawmakers protested the rounding up of many of their aides and security guards, and the country's vice president -- top Sunni leader Tariq al-Hashimi -- faced arrest and later fled the country. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was supposed to usher in a political era of inclusion and reconciliation. His critics say those first days after the American departure were a signal of opposite intentions that have continued to this day."
*goodco* · Member since
As always, they left out one pretty significant fact:
In 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory". The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement. US Forces, in the form of air support, resumed operations in Iraq in June 2014, to defend it against ISIL.
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]*goodco* wrote:[/b]
As always, they left out one pretty significant fact:
In 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory". The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement. US Forces, in the form of air support, resumed operations in Iraq in June 2014, to defend it against ISIL.[/QUOTE]
...
The agreement could have been renegotiated as conditions deteriorated from 2008 to 2011. However, Obama's passive, hands-off approach left al Maliki to his own devices. Per Leon Panetta (Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013):
"without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away."
Obama had three years to negotiate a new agreement prior to the Dec. 31, 2011, withdrawal date to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq. In fact, a day before Bush signed the agreement, Gen. Ray Odierno — the former commander of the U.S. troops in Iraq and current Army chief of staff — said the agreement might be renegotiated depending on conditions on the ground. “Three years is a very long time,” Odierno told the New York Times.
Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,” that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in Iraq.
Panetta wrote that Maliki insisted that a new agreement providing immunity to U.S. forces “would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for its approval,” which Panetta said “made reaching agreement very difficult.”
Very difficult, but Panetta wrote it was not impossible.
Panetta said the Obama White House did not press hard enough to reach a deal — a point that Bush makes in his speech. Panetta wrote that the U.S. “had leverage” and could have “threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid” if Iraq didn’t agree to “some sort of continued U.S. military presence.”
Panetta, “Worthy Fights,” 2014: To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized. To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.
Clinton campaign’s response that Iraq wouldn’t allow the Obama administration to renegotiate the terms of the withdrawal ignored criticism that Obama didn’t try hard enough. That criticism isn’t just partisan. His own defense secretary said Obama wasn’t actively engaged in the negotiations and allowed the opportunity to “slip away.”
*goodco* · Member since
And we wouldn't have falsely been in Iraq if ???????
Before you answer, please read Colin Powell's thoughts on the matter.
Saint Jiub · Member since
Yes ... all because Saddam had an assassination hit ordered on Dubya's daddy.
Do Dubya's old sins absolve Obama for his passive hands off approach to Iraq and letting al-Maliki slip away?
...
"If we had known the intelligence was wrong, we would not have gone into Iraq. But the intelligence community, all 16 agencies, assured us that it was right," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Regarding Colin Powell ... Is the above what you are talking about??? if not please provide a link.
*goodco* · Member since
That seems to be almost a 180 from his prior 'statements'
I am rather stunned, but have to acknowledge the facts as they are presented.
I read some other articles as well today where he stated there were leanings to invading Iraq PRIOR to 9/11. What a total cluster that entire region was, is, and always will be.
Saint Jiub · Member since
What did he say before? links?
*goodco* · Member since
Was hoping someone would add to the discussion while I was away in New Mexico and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Will answer when I get caught up.......
ParisNair · Member since
American military intervention in the Islamic World did not start with Dubya or 9/11. It did not even start with Gulf War 1.
It roughly started with the Soviet Afghan war in 1979.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aoYNQrOOu0 touches upon this lightly, among other things.
