ocdude Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) What you are failing to consider, is that times change... threats change.... ISIS grows. Bush did what was prudent at the time (as I believe you are acknowledging) in protecting our troops against a stubborn Iraqi leadership, by not signing an extended SOFA agreement without immunity in place. However, it's quite apparent that Bush and military leadership at the time did not want to leave. It is also quite apparent that today, that past leadership is again voicing that sentiment... as well as the current military leadership. The point is... that we can only rely on the subsequent, and now current leadership to adjust its policy to current circumstances... assertively and aggressively... renegotiating... not taking NO for an answer. That's what a leader does... especially as its citizenry and allies are threatened. To simply defer to a "previous agreement" is simply weak and pathetic. Obama has not listened to our country's advisors, nor adjusted to current issues... as threats have evolved. He could have, and should have. THAT is Obama's extreme failure... and frankly, his inaction has put us futher in peril. Sorry BUSH signed the agreement. Even a prudent leader cannot force a country to accept a change in terms if they do not want it, and Iraq was adamant in not wanting it.. In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat…” But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based. So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. The fact is that BUSH signed the agreement....the worst that Obama can be accused of is failing to FIX it. Edited October 12, 2014 by ocdude 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxinjersey Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Sorry BUSH signed the agreement. Even a prudent leader cannot force a country to accept a change in terms if they do not want it, and Iraq was adamant in not wanting it.. The fact is that BUSH signed the agreement....the worst that Obama can be accused of is failing to FIX it. Yes... that's my point. But, it's not about "fixing" (Bush was right in his action at the time... as you have acknowledged... "cannot force"). It's about doing what is necessary under Obama's term... "leadership". The new administration should have assertively renogotiated, especially under a new growing threat. Instead, it simply "defered"... and here we are... Yes, a Worse accusation for sure. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocdude Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) No, Bush was not right at the time....even as he signed the agreement, many were worried about Iran's influence. However, Obama DID try to renegotiate a new agreement...Iraq would have none of it. You do realize that it takes TWO to negotiate, correct?? Obama did try to negotiate....and fix what Bush screwed up....but he could not FORCE Iraq to accept his terms. I can only imagine the outrage that would have produced among the people who are determined to blame him for everything. Edited October 12, 2014 by ocdude 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxinjersey Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 No, Bush was not right at the time....even as he signed the agreement, many were worried about Iran's influence. However, Obama DID try to renegotiate a new agreement...Iraq would have none of it. You do realize that it takes TWO to negotiate, correct?? Obama did try to negotiate....and fix what Bush screwed up....but he could not FORCE Iraq to accept his terms. I can only imagine the outrage that would have produced among the people who are determined to blame him for everything. No need to be rude to me OC... I'm a pretty bright guy. I'm just trying to understand your position... as you acknowledged Bush couldn't force our terms, but then you say he "was not right" and "screwed up". Which is it? Would he have been "right" to you, had he given up immunity? Please distinguish your perspective. "Force" is quite a strong term... and of course, certainly not diplomatic... Perhaps "persuade" would be a better tactic in diplomacy of such an important issue. I for one, certainly believe we could have persuaded a much better resolve, considering the growing threat and urgency of security for Iraq, and us... and subsequently now other countries. The issue, as we see, is much too dire to simply give up on... the administration really has to try harder. Of course... they need to want to... Outrage? I'm sure all Bush fans would have approved of a successful renegotiation! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocdude Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) No need to be rude to me OC... I'm a pretty bright guy. I'm just trying to understand your position... as you acknowledged Bush couldn't force our terms, but then you say he "was not right" and "screwed up". Which is it? Would he have been "right" to you, had he given up immunity? Please distinguish your perspective. "Force" is quite a strong term... and of course, certainly not diplomatic... Perhaps "persuade" would be a better tactic in diplomacy of such an important issue. I for one, certainly believe we could have persuaded a much better resolve, considering the growing threat and urgency of security for Iraq, and us... and subsequently now other countries. The issue, as we see, is much too dire to simply give up on... the administration really has to try harder. Of course... they need to want to... Outrage? I'm sure all Bush fans would have approved of a successful renegotiation! Who was being rude?? Disagreeing is not being rude. Bush was in the middle of negotiations with a willing Iraq.....the agreement signed was the best he could do. At the time, Iraq was willing to come to the table and negotiate. That was not the case in 2011. Iraq as a sovereign nation, refused to allow our troops to stay under any circumstances. The most brilliant of negotiators cannot force one side to accept an agreement. Obama had no choice but to abide by the agreement that BUSH SIGNED, And no, Bush fans would not have celebrated....they would have blamed Obama for forcing a sovereign country to accept our troops...just as they blame him for being the Imperial president now because of the EO's he has signed. Ironic, isn't it, since he has the LEAST amount of EO's since Harding. Edited October 12, 2014 by ocdude 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxinjersey Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Who was being rude?? Disagreeing is not being rude. Bush was in the middle of negotiations with a willing Iraq.....the agreement signed was the best he could do. At the time, Iraq was willing to come to the table and negotiate. That was not the case in 2011. Iraq as a sovereign nation, refused to allow our troops to stay under any circumstances. The most brilliant of negotiators cannot force one side to accept an agreement. Obama had no choice but to abide by the agreement that BUSH SIGNED, And no, Bush fans would not have celebrated....they would have blamed Obama for forcing a sovereign country to accept our troops...just as they blame him for being the Imperial president now because of the EO's he has signed. Ironic, isn't it, since he has the LEAST amount of EO's since Harding. I highlighted your condescension in my previous post. Moving on... Please see further highlighting... you are agreeing with me. Bush was right at the time... OR are you saying he should have capitulated to the immunity deal? You have not clarified that. And, you have not addressed my distinction of "persuasion" versus "force". That what diplomacy is for. A current leader ALWAYS has a choice... at least to TRY persuasively, persistently, aggressively... based of course on listening to advisors, intel, current events/developments (ISIS growth, for example.) In this instance,cChoices of inaction have dire consequences. Bush fans would have been grateful! It's the Obama fans that would have protested "extending our troop presence... and that's not good for the Administration! I'm sure you've heard this before.... It's the substance of EOs that matter, not the quantity! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yendor Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 There is no arguing with these idiots that keep saying that everything that Obama does is Bush's fault. The next thing out of their mouths after "Bush's Fault" is: " Tax breaks for the wealthy". It's the same battle cry the Liberals have been using forever. Forget about the mess Obama continues to make of this country..... as long as these freeloaders can continue to get their "entitlements" they'll continue to elect these bums. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocdude Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) I highlighted your condescension in my previous post. Moving on... Please see further highlighting... you are agreeing with me. Bush was right at the time... OR are you saying he should have capitulated to the immunity deal? You have not clarified that. And, you have not addressed my distinction of "persuasion" versus "force". That what diplomacy is for. A current leader ALWAYS has a choice... at least to TRY persuasively, persistently, aggressively... based of course on listening to advisors, intel, current events/developments (ISIS growth, for example.) In this instance,cChoices of inaction have dire consequences. Bush fans would have been grateful! It's the Obama fans that would have protested "extending our troop presence... and that's not good for the Administration! I'm sure you've heard this before.... It's the substance of EOs that matter, not the quantity! I disagree. Not being rude or condescending...just disagreeing. I am not agreeing with you...saying that Bush did the best he could does not mean that he was right....just did all he was capable of. A better negotiator probably would have gotten a better deal. And capitulating on the immunity was not his only tool. And no, the BEST negotiator cannot negotiate with someone who is unwilling to bend. Period. Bush had the best chance of negotiating and was unable to get a better deal....and that as when Iraq was willing to come to the table. Obama was unable to fix the agreement signed by Bush because of an unwilling sovereign nation. That does not change the fact that the failure to negotiate a better deal lies squarely on Bush's shoulders. And yes, I have heard that before....it's the go to argument by all who get egg on their face when they realize that Obama has the LEAST amount of EO's since Harding. There is no arguing with these idiots that keep saying that everything that Obama does is Bush's fault. The next thing out of their mouths after "Bush's Fault" is: " Tax breaks for the wealthy". It's the same battle cry the Liberals have been using forever. Forget about the mess Obama continues to make of this country..... as long as these freeloaders can continue to get their "entitlements" they'll continue to elect these bums. Sorry....how is it Obama's fault that Bush signed the agreement that you are posting about? Edited October 12, 2014 by ocdude 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yendor Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 It's Obama's fault that he pulled out all our troops so that the ISIS, Al Queda, Islamic Botherhood and all his Muslim buddies can walk right in. Bush warned that an early withdrawal would results would be just what it is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocdude Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) It's Obama's fault that he pulled out all our troops so that the ISIS, Al Queda, Islamic Botherhood and all his Muslim buddies can walk right in. Bush warned that an early withdrawal would results would be just what it is today. BUSH SIGNED THE AGREEMENT STATING THAT THE TROOPS WOULD BE OUT BY THAT DATE. It was HIS call. Edited October 12, 2014 by ocdude 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzur Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 IF doing an autopsy on the decision making of both administrations involved with Iraq did any good right now, that would be great.... but it won't. Like Jax says, times have changed and we move on.... And for the record BOTH administrations made some profound strategic errors for whatever reason.... we are human... we do that... hopefully we learn from them, make corrections and move on.. I admire Bush's management style of supporting the guy in the field doing the job. However, the entire fabric of Iraq would be different (how is another question of course), but would be different had he found a way to back off Bremer's decision. But instead, Bremer's decision which he announced one day and implemented the next, to fire 400,000 Iraqi army soldiers overnight and therein send 400,000 now unemployed and really angry mostly Sunni soldiers home with guns, totally obliterated the US plan to use that same Iraqi army to help stabilize Iraq when we left..... And frankly I think Bremer pulled a massively nasty stunt in terms of how he announced his essentially unilateral decision, and put Bush in a really tough spot, but we are talking leadership. Had Bush been able to back him off and instead follow the advice of his Command General's who were in and Commanded the troops in Iraq, those soldiers would have been available to stabilize Iraq as planned. Colin Powell minces no words in recalling we went to Rice and said wtf over.... we need these people and Rice said, Bremer is in charge there is no debating the decision. .... Further, had Bush included military Command officers in the decision to sign an agreement that we would leave in 2011, they would have advised him that building an Army almost exclusively from the not so angry Shites, and re building a military infra structure from scratch, with only 5-6 years experience by 2011,.... such a date would be premature and ill-advised.... And the truth is he signed and we were bound by it. It is also true that no one was willing to leave any US soldier in Iraq without demanding that legal jurisdiction would remain with the US military and no US soldier would come under Iraq courts or Iraq law for trial for any reason. That date was hard, and no one was going to agree to subject US military personnel to Iraqi laws. Panetta is quite clear he believes that Obama could have negotiated stronger in crafting a new SOFA. I'm not sure if it's clear that Panetta's belief we should have left troops in Iraq meant within the context of a new agreement.... He did not ever advocate US troops should have been left there without this agreement....(overt versus covert) and It appears as if people are neglecting this detail.. or maybe he didn't flesh it out clearly enough in his statements... I also don't know why he thinks Obama could have done more to negotiate this and next time I see him I am definitely going to ask him. However, he was there, and I have no reason to doubt his convictions that Obama could have done more.... much more ....to craft a new agreement to protect those troops we would leave in place...It didn't happen, it should have happened and because it didn't no responsible Command Officer would ever leave their troops in that country without that protection. .... And yes currently, I see way too much that's not okay and still happening....Anyone reading any of my recent posts regarding Kobane have probably figured out that I'm not even remotely okay with the current engagement activities to eliminate ISIS under the command of this administration... and apparently as of this weekend, there are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people filling the streets all over the world who see it the same way... YA wanna stop the jihad of ISIS? Figure out why no one bothered striking thousands of them crossing open fields in daylight with really big weapons you could have seen from the outer rims of space.... OR, for that matter, why we're still not arming the only people on the ground who are actually killing them.... I'm all for moving on... I'm just trying to figure out who exactly this administration thinks the enemy is, cause apparently grain silos have presented more of a threat than has ISIS? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeetdog Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Thanks Rayzur.....I just keep going back to why didn't the option of putting the troop on the Embassy's Diplomatic Roll not ever enter into the negotiations for immunity for the troops...They would had to notify a minister about the names and not have had to gotten an approval from any branch of the Iraqi government... It's really getting kinda ease to see the errors in the targeting of our air strikes in correlation to elementary surveillance of enemy movement. With the pin point accuracy of laser guided rockets the setting ducks we observing everyday should've been neutralized weeks ago when a more efficient kill ratio was obtainable in their troop movement vulnerability. The ordnances we're using on ISIS is nothing more than a RPG shot from an air-craft. We could make a statement to ISIS, the Turks and settle the conflict of Kobain with a dozen A-10's loaded for Bear and piloted by some ''How Ya Like Me Now'' Females....Compared to the waist of time, effort, manpower and resources being haphazardly administered by the non-engagement of our paternal striking power..... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontlop Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Obama can't really say anything about sofa because he claims he ended the war If he does it means he lied and would have to say bush ended the war But Obama has been bragging he ended it See what lying does to obama After obama takes over everything is in his control Obama changed lots of things bush signed Who cares ObAma is not a good president Clinton was not a good president Carter wasn't a good president You can't remember the last good democrat president there wasn't any was there? I'm glad we're out of there so far As long as this doesn't come back to bite us in the assss We were stuck there and if someone would like to go back , by all means go get on a plane and go back I'd rather just end iraq It's been nothing but trouble for thousands of years long before oil was discovered Either irrigate the land with the rivers or just level the chit hole Farm it or get what they deserve They want us to farm and send them food Bs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinarmite Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 It's Obama's fault that he pulled out all our troops so that the ISIS, Al Queda, Islamic Botherhood and all his Muslim buddies can walk right in. Bush warned that an early withdrawal would results would be just what it is today. Bush Sr. and Obama's dad both should have tried early withdraw. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocdude Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 IF doing an autopsy on the decision making of both administrations involved with Iraq did any good right now, that would be great.... but it won't. Like Jax says, times have changed and we move on.... And for the record BOTH administrations made some profound strategic errors for whatever reason.... we are human... we do that... hopefully we learn from them, make corrections and move on.. I admire Bush's management style of supporting the guy in the field doing the job. However, the entire fabric of Iraq would be different (how is another question of course), but would be different had he found a way to back off Bremer's decision. But instead, Bremer's decision which he announced one day and implemented the next, to fire 400,000 Iraqi army soldiers overnight and therein send 400,000 now unemployed and really angry mostly Sunni soldiers home with guns, totally obliterated the US plan to use that same Iraqi army to help stabilize Iraq when we left..... And frankly I think Bremer pulled a massively nasty stunt in terms of how he announced his essentially unilateral decision, and put Bush in a really tough spot, but we are talking leadership. Had Bush been able to back him off and instead follow the advice of his Command General's who were in and Commanded the troops in Iraq, those soldiers would have been available to stabilize Iraq as planned. Colin Powell minces no words in recalling we went to Rice and said wtf over.... we need these people and Rice said, Bremer is in charge there is no debating the decision. .... Further, had Bush included military Command officers in the decision to sign an agreement that we would leave in 2011, they would have advised him that building an Army almost exclusively from the not so angry Shites, and re building a military infra structure from scratch, with only 5-6 years experience by 2011,.... such a date would be premature and ill-advised.... And the truth is he signed and we were bound by it. It is also true that no one was willing to leave any US soldier in Iraq without demanding that legal jurisdiction would remain with the US military and no US soldier would come under Iraq courts or Iraq law for trial for any reason. That date was hard, and no one was going to agree to subject US military personnel to Iraqi laws. Panetta is quite clear he believes that Obama could have negotiated stronger in crafting a new SOFA. I'm not sure if it's clear that Panetta's belief we should have left troops in Iraq meant within the context of a new agreement.... He did not ever advocate US troops should have been left there without this agreement....(overt versus covert) and It appears as if people are neglecting this detail.. or maybe he didn't flesh it out clearly enough in his statements... I also don't know why he thinks Obama could have done more to negotiate this and next time I see him I am definitely going to ask him. However, he was there, and I have no reason to doubt his convictions that Obama could have done more.... much more ....to craft a new agreement to protect those troops we would leave in place...It didn't happen, it should have happened and because it didn't no responsible Command Officer would ever leave their troops in that country without that protection. .... And yes currently, I see way too much that's not okay and still happening....Anyone reading any of my recent posts regarding Kobane have probably figured out that I'm not even remotely okay with the current engagement activities to eliminate ISIS under the command of this administration... and apparently as of this weekend, there are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people filling the streets all over the world who see it the same way... YA wanna stop the jihad of ISIS? Figure out why no one bothered striking thousands of them crossing open fields in daylight with really big weapons you could have seen from the outer rims of space.... OR, for that matter, why we're still not arming the only people on the ground who are actually killing them.... I'm all for moving on... I'm just trying to figure out who exactly this administration thinks the enemy is, cause apparently grain silos have presented more of a threat than has ISIS? Well said, I completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonnet Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Bottom line the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State & the CIA told the President that he had to leave troops there. Many have said that he didn't push it because he didn't want it! He wanted the troops out. The things that Bush warned us about are now happening. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocdude Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Bottom line the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State & the CIA told the President that he had to leave troops there. Many have said that he didn't push it because he didn't want it! He wanted the troops out. The things that Bush warned us about are now happening. So Bush warned about having the troops withdraw...then signed a binding agreement mandating the troops complete withdrawal. Where I come from that's called "talking out of both sides of your mouth". If he was so worried about the catastrophe that would happen if we withdrew...he should have negotiated a better agreement. Yet it is far easier for you to blame Obama for not renegotiating the agreement. Uh huh. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonnet Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Good grief! Things change especially in times of war! This is what a leader does - adapts, makes decisions to protect the people of his country. At any rate, no point in arguing with you - if you can not see what's happening to our country, there's no point. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocdude Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Good grief! Things change especially in times of war! This is what a leader does - adapts, makes decisions to protect the people of his country. At any rate, no point in arguing with you - if you can not see what's happening to our country, there's no point. So...your argument is that Bush saw that bad things would happen if we withdrew, and warned us about it....then SIGNED THE AGREEMENT that made us withdraw....but it's OBAMA's fault for not fixing what BUSH did.... To echo your sentiment....good grief. Edited October 13, 2014 by ocdude 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonnet Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 lol. No I am not saying that at all! When Bush left office things were much better there. So, the parties at be agreed on a future deadline. But things changed & it should have been extended. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocdude Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) lol. No I am not saying that at all! When Bush left office things were much better there. So, the parties at be agreed on a future deadline. But things changed & it should have been extended. No, the generals at the time did not think it was a good idea to withdraw because of Iran's influence. Iraq was not stable at all. Bush signed it anyway. In 2011....Iraq was far more stable and had been sovereign for many years. Iraq refused to negotiate. So Obama was not able to FIX the agreement signed by BUSH, The point you are missing is that Bush in 2007 supposedly warned what would happen to Iraq if we withdrew , and the SIGNED THE AGREEMENT FOR A COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL in 2008. So....what changed from 2007 TO 2008....AND THEN CHANGED BACK MAGICALLY IN 2011? Edited October 13, 2014 by ocdude 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonnet Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 I read several more articles today by high ranking officials - so I am going with those. I do hope that you have a wonderful evening! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocdude Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 I read several more articles today by high ranking officials - so I am going with those. I do hope that you have a wonderful evening! Yeah...make sure you figure out how you negotiate with a sovereign nation with no desire to negotiate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocdude Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) I read several more articles today by high ranking officials - so I am going with those. I do hope that you have a wonderful evening! So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran. Bottom line....whether or not having more troops would have helped or had no effect....BUSH signed the agreement withdrawing troops, and IRAQ refused to negotiate again. Had BUSH been a better negotiator, this wouldn't have been an issue. Edited October 13, 2014 by ocdude 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts