Who's to blame for Al Qaeda's resurgence in Iraq

[WISKY291]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3013847979001/whos-to-blame-for-al-qaedas-resurgence-in-iraq/

 

[sanders2340]

Al Qaeda

[JayLay]

Al Qaeda

Exactly. Can't blame anyone else but them

[Gunshow2425]

Exactly. Can't blame anyone else but them

One dinar for the first person who does an Obama rant since you said that.

[JayLay]

One dinar for the first person who does an Obama rant since you said that.

I am referring to the blame towards Al Qaeda. They are to blame.

[DinarMillionaire]

OBAMA that's one Dinar down Gunshow. Although, it may not count as a rant. Edited January 5, 2014 by DinarMillionaire

[vomer]

OBAMA that's one Dinar down Gunshow. Although, it may not count as a rant.

Thank you.

[Gunshow2425]

OBAMA that's one Dinar down Gunshow. Although, it may not count as a rant.

Haha my lowest denom is 10000. Can you break it?

[GGGECKO]

If we were still in the neighborhood (instead of abandoning them) even in a very small presence do you think these knuckleheads would've moved back in the neighborhood? The answer for those in a I love ObamaCare induced coma the answer would be NO! Come on people. Pentagon told them this would happen. I suppose that wouldn't have helped the poll numbers. I'm so disappointed because it diminishes all the sacrifice that all the Vets that were there to change things. Sorry had to do it.

 

Go RV!

 

[DinarMillionaire]

Haha my lowest denom is 10000. Can you break it?

Just hold on to my $0.000859845 and I'll pick it up later. lol

@GGGECKO, you are correct.

Edited January 5, 2014 by DinarMillionaire

[Indraman]

If we were still in the neighborhood (instead of abandoning them) even in a very small presence do you think these knuckleheads would've moved back in the neighborhood? The answer for those in a I love ObamaCare induced coma the answer would be NO! Come on people. Pentagon told them this would happen. I suppose that wouldn't have helped the poll numbers. I'm so disappointed because it diminishes all the sacrifice that all the Vets that were there to change things. Sorry had to do it.

 

Go RV!

 

 

 

Exactly! Everything that is happening now was foretold if we left Iraq early, but because of Obama's thirst for power and political reasons, he pulled the US troops out of the region.

 

Indy

[detroitjazzman]

How do you "make" a sovereign country let you continue to occupy their country! smh

[sportfisher]

OBAMA is to blame.

[vomer]

Obama is on vacation .. and scolding GOP congress for going on vacation.  What do expect from a narcissist idiot?

[Rayzur]

So here is what happened.....

 

When the Bush administration went into Iraq, they did have a timeline and strategy ..... as would any responsible administration.... It shifted a bit, though there was frequent consultation with the idiots in the think tanks advising that administration, (as they do all administrations).... in 2006 into 2007,  public opinion also started to pressure the Bush administration to come up with an iron clad exit strategy, as the growing majority of people were pretty much done with the war in Iraq. Congress passed a bill in 2007 (I think it was that year) stating that America would withdraw form Iraq by sometime in 2008 and Bush vetoed it. And again, that administration likewise understood the growing pressure to end the war and began modifying/redesigning their exit, based upon the nimrods in the think tanks...

 

In 2008 the American and Iraqi governments signed the US / Iraq Status of Forces Agreement,  which stipulated that all American forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities by 30 June 2009 and from Iraqi territory altogether by 31 December 2011. On 14 December 2008 then-President George W. Bush signed the security pact with Iraq.

 

Now I don't know about the rest of ya'll, but I found it rather confusing that in 2009 Obama announced a deadline for withdrawing troops, that reflected the deadline signed in the 2008 treaty by Bush, ....... as if Obama invented the idea of withdrawing from Iraq. ..... I'm still not sure why Obama is credited with the withdrawal from Iraq, when the US followed the timelines signed into treaty by Bush in 2008?!?!? Its not like we have foreign policy that states when a new president takes office all treaties negotiated in the past are null and void.....

 

 

Here's what I think part of the back story is...... The think tanks and agencies advising the presidents seem to retain the short sighted need to ignore the cultural differences between the ME and Western culture. As they did back then with Bush and continue into present, the chuck weeds continue to ignore the power of tribal affiliation, and exaggerate the transformational power of a democracy. Becoming a democratic nation does not obliterate cultural mores, values and social norms in existence for thousands of years. Nor does the power of democracy strengthen the hard line borders of a country, that for centuries have incorporated the overlay of tribal affiliation as a transgressor of those hard lines.

 

As to the future and consequence of remaining ignorant of the cultural drivers of the ME,.... of course we see what we knew would be. Political dinosaurs in the policy making business are scared spitless that' we're going to create another Iran.... absent any indication they even remotely learned the lessons from that intervention.... Why would anyone speculate that Iraq will not "organically" as an aspect of its aculturation, not proceed down the same path.... eventually? I hope it won't, and I am concerned that we did not put into place enough infra structure with military protection, monitoring and enforcement, to endure longer than the forces against it.... From what I know and have been told by those who are involved, I am genuinely concerned that we missed the mark, over estimated the power of democratic change as an enduring force against cultural tendency, and Iraq is going to have a terribly difficult time gaining the stability it needs from the standpoint of "terrorist" opposition.

 

This is not likely a popular opinion, and it seems that consideration of a NATO peace keeping force is something we might want to at least consider as a possibility.... (and yes I would suit up and go). We left a hell of a mess (not by design of course), and something is required to assist the Iraqi administration past this major hurdle. When Maliki was in the US last, it wasn't about the frickin RV. He was here asking the US for help in overcoming the terrorist opposition and stopping the growing violence..... IMO, I don't see that as a near future possibility without some kind of external assistance..... which imo, needs to come from a combined international force, so that the mission is clear and we don't engage anything resembling a declaration of war.... It would become our new Bosnia as it were.....

Edited January 5, 2014 by Rayzur

[sanders2340]

Exactly! Everything that is happening now was foretold if we left Iraq early, but because of Obama's thirst for power and political reasons, he pulled the US troops out of the region.

 

Indy

I'm glad he did bring our sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters home.

[Indraman]

I'm glad he did bring our sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters home.

 

I am glad they are home as well, but realistic in the fact that if the blood and lives of our soldiers is spent for this administration to turn its head and run and let the region return to pre-war status, then I don't agree with what has been done.

 

Indy

[pontiyak]

Rayzur.. well spoken.

 

yak

[yota691]

FRIDAY, OCT 21, 2011 03:03 PM EDT

About that Iraq withdrawal Both parties work to churn out myths regarding the President's announcement that all troops will leave by year end

GLENN GREENWALD

•  

(Credit: Reuters)

(updated below – Update II – Update III [sat.])

President Obama announced today that all U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year, and this announcement is being seized upon exactly the way you would predict: by the Right to argue that Obama is a weak, appeasing Chamberlain and by Democrats to hail his greatness for keeping his promise and (yet again) Ending the War. It’s obviously a good thing that these troops are leaving Iraq, but let’s note three clear facts before either of these absurd narratives ossify:

First, the troop withdrawal is required by an agreement which George W. Bush negotiated and entered into with Iraq and which was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament prior to Obama’s inauguration. Let’s listen to the White House itself today: “’This deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave. . . .’ an administration official said.” As I said, it’s a good thing that this agreement is being adhered to, and one can reasonably argue that Obama’s campaign advocacy for the war’s end influenced the making of that agreement, but the Year End 2011 withdrawal date was agreed to by the Bush administration and codified by them in a binding agreement.

Second, the Obama administration has been working for months to persuade, pressure and cajole Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in that country beyond the deadline. The reason they’re being withdrawn isn’t because Obama insisted on this, but because he tried — but failed — to get out of this obligation. Again, listen to the White House itself:

Iraqi Parliament Approves Status of Forces Agreement

Iraq lawmakers approved the U.S. security pact Thursday, ending months of wrangling between Baghdad and Washington.

 

 

November 27, 2008  |  

 

The Iraqi parliament on Thursday approved by a vast majority a landmark military pact that will have all U.S. troops withdraw from the country by 2011, during a televised session.

The wide-ranging pact was approved by 144 members of the 198 who attended the session of the 275-member assembly, Parliamentary Speaker Mahmud Mashhadani said before adjourning the parliament for a holiday recess.

"It is good to see that representatives have reached a national consensus ... Everyone should understand that if there are gains, they are for all Iraqis, and if there are losses, they will also be for all Iraqis," said government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh.

The approval by lawmakers of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) ends months of wrangling between Baghdad and Washington.

The two sides had been racing to secure a bilateral agreement governing the more than 150,000 U.S.-led troops stationed in the country before December 31.

Most Iraqis are opposed to any kind of deal with Washington that would keep American forces in the country, and that would give U.S. forces immunity from being punished when they commit war crimes against Iraqis.

Here are the main developments since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

2003

- May 1: Six weeks after invading Iraq, President George W. Bush declares an end to major combat in Iraq. An international stabilization force is set up with around 156,000 troops, of which 148,000 are American soldiers.

2005

- Dec 23: Washington announces that 7,000 soldiers will be withdrawn by spring 2006. More than 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq since March 2003, putting the U.S. administration under pressure from U.S. public opinion.

2006

- Dec 6: A high-level study group on Iraq, set up at the initiative of the U.S. Congress, reports that Bush's policy in Iraq has failed and calls for the withdrawal of US forces to start.

2007

- Jan 10: Bush announces a "surge" in troop numbers to Iraq, sending another 30,000 soldiers. U.S. forces rise from a base of about 132,000 to a high of 166,300 in October.

- Sept 13: Bush announces plans to begin a drawdown of U.S. "surge" brigades, with the first of five to leave by the end of 2007.

- Nov 26: Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki sign a declaration of principles on the U.S. military presence. Maliki announces that 2008 will be last year in which US forces will be present under a UN mandate. After that the presence will be determined by a bilateral accord.

2008

- April 10: Bush announces the drawdown of U.S. combat brigades will be suspended after July, but says 15-month tours of duty will be shortened to 12-month tours after August.

- May 6: A third 3,500-strong "surge" brigade pull out of Iraq. The overall U.S. force level is 156,000 soldiers.

- Sept 1: An Iraqi daily publishes a draft of the security pact with Washington known as SOFA, showing that immunity for American troops is a key sticking point.

- July 8: The Iraqi government refuses to conclude an accord on the US presence in the country after 2008, as long as Washington does not provide a calendar for withdrawing its troops.

- July 14: Bush rejects artificial calendars for withdrawal, saying that it will depend on conditions on the ground.

- Sept 9: Bush announces he is reducing the U.S. presence by 8,000 in the coming months, which will leave the total number in-country at 140,000. A marine battalion and 3,400 support troops are to leave by the end of the year. U.S. combat strength will go down to 14 brigades by February.

 Sept 16: U.S. General Raymond Odierno takes command of U.S.-led forces in Iraq from David Petraeus.

- Sept 17: Maliki warns that the security pact with the United States is facing "serious and dangerous obstacles."

- Sept 24: U.S. officials negotiating return to Baghdad to resume discussions on the security pact which have been deadlocked since early September.

- Nov 14: The White House endorses the text of the U.S.-Iraq military pact.

- Nov 16: The Baghdad government endorses the pact and sends it to parliament for its approval.

- Nov 27: Parliament approves the deal by a large majority.

Obama Announces Complete Drawdown of U.S. Troops From Iraq by Year’s End

By Jake Tapper
@jaketapper
Find on FacebookFollow on Twitter

Oct 21, 2011 12:45pm

Susan Walsh/AP Photo

ABC News’ Jake Tapper and Huma Khan report:

President Obama today announced that the United States will pull all its troop from Iraq by the end of the year, as ABC News first reported.

“Today, I can report that as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,” the president said. “After nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”

Obama vowed to work with the Iraqi government in the coming years, and said the two were “in full agreement about how to move forward.”

On a broader scale, the president stressed that “the end of war in Iraq reflects a larger transition.”

“The tide of war is receding,” he said of the war that started under President George W. Bush in 2003.

About 4,000-5,000 security contractors will remain in Iraq, the White House said.

The Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq expires at the end of the year. Officials had been discussing the possibility of maintaining several thousand U.S. troops to train Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqis wanted troops to stay but would not give them immunity, a key demand of the administration.

“This deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave, but the Iraqis wanted additional troops to stay,” an administration official said. “We said here are the conditions, including immunities. But the Iraqis because of a variety of reasons wanted the troops and didn’t want to give immunity.”

Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough told reporters that the U.S. assessment determined that Iraqis were ready and they proved they could fully take over their security. The U.S. will have a robust diplomatic presence and continue to train Iraqi forces, he said, but it will be similar to what it has in other countries.

“We’re going to have the kind of robust cooperation with the Iraqis that we have with allies all over the world,” McDonough said.

President Obama convened a secure video conference this morning with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to talk with him about this news, a source said.

More than 1 million Americans have served in Iraq since the war began nine years ago. More than 4,000 troops have died, and over 32,000 injured during these years.

There are 39,000 U.S. troops in Iraq as of this week. From the beginning of operations through July 31, 2011, the Defense Department has obligated $704.6 billion for Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn (OND). The monthly cost of the war right now is about $3.8 billion.

Today’s announcement fulfills one of Obama’s central campaign promises. In 2002, Obama called the intervention a “dumb war” and as presidential candidate, vowed to bring troops home in his administration.

The Iraq war has become deeply unpopular among Americans. In a Gallup poll conducted in January, 66 percent of Americans opposed the war and a majority did not think it was worth fighting, given its costs versus the benefits.

ABC News’ Luis Martinez and Mary Bruce contributed to this report.

U.S. forces to stay in Iraq into 2012, says Leon Panetta

•  

The defense secretary said U.S. troops will remain in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31 deadline. | AP PhotoClose

By REID J. EPSTEIN | 8/19/11 3:49 PM EDT

 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Iraq’s government has agreed to extend the U.S. military presence in the country beyond 2011 — but Iraq quickly rejected the claim.

The word from Panetta, during an interview with Stars & Stripes, was the first official indication that any of the 46,000 American troops will remain in Iraq beyond the country’s Dec. 31 deadline for U.S. forces to leave. The U.S. and Iraq reached a security agreement in 2008 that the entire American military would be out of the country by the end of 2011.

 

 

“My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes,’” Panetta told the military’s official newspaper. He told the paper he urged the Iraqis six weeks ago to “damn it, make a decision” about allowing U.S. troops to remain in the country into 2012.

But shortly after Panetta’s interview hit the Internet, a spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Agence-France Presse that no deal is in place.

“We have not yet agreed on the issue of keeping training forces,” spokesman Ali Mussawi said. “The negotiations are ongoing, and these negotiations have not been finalized.”

Panetta said the Pentagon has already begun planning for the continued presence in Iraq.

After Stars & Stripes published its interview, Pentagon press secretary George Little provided reporters a transcript of Panetta’s interview with the paper.

In that transcript, Panetta is quoted saying: “My view is that they finally did say yes, which is that, as a result of a meeting that [iraqi President Jalal] Talabani had last week, that … it was unanimous consent among the key leaders of the country to go ahead and request that we negotiate on some kind of training, what a training presence would look like, they did at least put in place a process to try and get a minister of defense decided and we think they’re making some progress on that front.”

Panetta also said, according to the official transcript, that the Pentagon will abide by President Barack Obama’s pledge to end U.S. military operations in Iraq.

“We have begun the drawdown, and we will continue the drawdown and we will fulfill the commitment that we are going to take all the combat forces out of Iraq,” he said. “That’s a commitment the president made to the country and I think he clearly wants to stand by that. The issue will then become what is the kind of training assistance and presence that Iraq feels it needs in order to be able to defend itself and secure itself.”

Edited January 5, 2014 by yota691

[uncirculd]

So here is what happened.....

 

When the Bush administration went into Iraq, they did have a timeline and strategy ..... as would any responsible administration.... It shifted a bit, though there was frequent consultation with the idiots in the think tanks advising that administration, (as they do all administrations).... in 2006 into 2007,  public opinion also started to pressure the Bush administration to come up with an iron clad exit strategy, as the growing majority of people were pretty much done with the war in Iraq. Congress passed a bill in 2007 (I think it was that year) stating that America would withdraw form Iraq by sometime in 2008 and Bush vetoed it. And again, that administration likewise understood the growing pressure to end the war and began modifying/redesigning their exit, based upon the nimrods in the think tanks...

 

In 2008 the American and Iraqi governments signed the US / Iraq Status of Forces Agreement,  which stipulated that all American forces should withdraw from Iraqi cities by 30 June 2009 and from Iraqi territory altogether by 31 December 2011. On 14 December 2008 then-President George W. Bush signed the security pact with Iraq.

 

Now I don't know about the rest of ya'll, but I found it rather confusing that in 2009 Obama announced a deadline for withdrawing troops, that reflected the deadline signed in the 2008 treaty by Bush, ....... as if Obama invented the idea of withdrawing from Iraq. ..... I'm still not sure why Obama is credited with the withdrawal from Iraq, when the US followed the timelines signed into treaty by Bush in 2008?!?!? Its not like we have foreign policy that states when a new president takes office all treaties negotiated in the past are null and void.....

 

 

Here's what I think part of the back story is...... The think tanks and agencies advising the presidents seem to retain the short sighted need to ignore the cultural differences between the ME and Western culture. As they did back then with Bush and continue into present, the chuck weeds continue to ignore the power of tribal affiliation, and exaggerate the transformational power of a democracy. Becoming a democratic nation does not obliterate cultural mores, values and social norms in existence for thousands of years. Nor does the power of democracy strengthen the hard line borders of a country, that for centuries have incorporated the overlay of tribal affiliation as a transgressor of those hard lines.

 

As to the future and consequence of remaining ignorant of the cultural drivers of the ME,.... of course we see what we knew would be. Political dinosaurs in the policy making business are scared spitless that' we're going to create another Iran.... absent any indication they even remotely learned the lessons from that intervention.... Why would anyone speculate that Iraq will not "organically" as an aspect of its aculturation, not proceed down the same path.... eventually? I hope it won't, and I am concerned that we did not put into place enough infra structure with military protection, monitoring and enforcement, to endure longer than the forces against it.... From what I know and have been told by those who are involved, I am genuinely concerned that we missed the mark, over estimated the power of democratic change as an enduring force against cultural tendency, and Iraq is going to have a terribly difficult time gaining the stability it needs from the standpoint of "terrorist" opposition.

 

This is not likely a popular opinion, and it seems that consideration of a NATO peace keeping force is something we might want to at least consider as a possibility.... (and yes I would suit up and go). We left a hell of a mess (not by design of course), and something is required to assist the Iraqi administration past this major hurdle. When Maliki was in the US last, it wasn't about the frickin RV. He was here asking the US for help in overcoming the terrorist opposition and stopping the growing violence..... IMO, I don't see that as a near future possibility without some kind of external assistance..... which imo, needs to come from a combined international force, so that the mission is clear and we don't engage anything resembling a declaration of war.... It would become our new Bosnia as it were.....

I love your work. (mind)  So true it is.  But Bush and Obama both should be impeached and hung as traitors and constitution violations.   I can only call on the administration in power at the time of leaving that he did NOT listen to the sunnis and kurds about maliki's marginalization, arbitrary arrest etc etc.    When maliki never formed a "constitutional government" that should have had the US unwilling to do anything for this man.  But taking him on his word was a very bad mistake.  It don't take this long to see saddam incarnate.    You are so right he was here because of terrorism, but he has created a sectarian Iranian ruled country that is unfriendly to Christians, Sunnis, and Kurds.   He brought this on himself by killing innocent refugees from Iran, and knocking off his opponents, not to mention his vice president who would have put his hinnie out had he not got 5 or 10 death sentences.  And the funny thing in, maliki is the guilty one for that.  But, the US made this bed and we are now sleeping in it.  Now folks can know why they hate us.  We always leave "their" business unfinished.  We finish ours, but leave them high and dry.  It's a shame.

[Gunshow2425]

BOTH bush and Obama could have done better.

[jg1]

I'm glad he did bring our sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters home.

You cant help Iraq when Iraq does not want to help its self. Iraq was given the rains and Iraqee politicians  stole the horses, and rode off into the sunset. 90 percent of Iraq's wealth goes to corruption, how can you succeed. Oh, and yes, Obama was at fault too.

Edited January 6, 2014 by jg1

[AmericaInc]

Exactly. Can't blame anyone else but them

Except for George Bush. After all, he put us there.

Right?

[jg1]

If I remember right, I don't think Malaki even won the election, but the US helped  give it to him anyways.

[AmericaInc]

Obama is on vacation .. and scolding GOP congress for going on vacation.  What do expect from a narcissist idiot?

What do we expect from an idiot....

Weeeeellllllllll.....read Rayzur's fantastic post. Then you will answer this question.

 

For those of you who blame Obama, your answer lies there. Perhaps you should hone your analytical skills...the same ones that told you it was a fight for "freedom" when it all started.