Posted on 06/11/2015 6:24:20 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
President Barack Obama was elected on a promise of extricating the U.S. military from Iraq — what he called a “clean break.” More than six years later, he’s found there’s simply no escaping the pressure to send U.S. combat forces back.
But the move, which follows the embarrassing fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi, drew immediate criticism from Republicans. Further exacerbating Obama’s political crisis, Democrats on the other side accused him of unnecessarily escalating U.S. involvement and risking “mission creep.”
“The last thing he foresaw was the need to reintroduce troops into Iraq,” said Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “You probably couldn’t have a more reluctant president to go down that road. But I think he is intent we don’t ignore the lessons of the first war.”
Those who fear the U.S. is getting pulled into another ground war they believe is not America’s to fight were glum in the wake of the White House announcement.
“It represents an escalation,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts, calling it “incremental mission creep.”
“We are going to establish a military base. We are getting closer and closer to the front lines,” McGovern said. “This won’t be the last deployment. It will continue to increase.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.eu ...
Obama is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t.
That’s OK...as long as he’s damned.
So now he is sending 450 more troops to Iraq? Can’t have it both ways. Crap or get off the pot.
Those who fear the U.S. is getting pulled into another ground war they believe is not America’s to fight were glum in the wake of the White House announcement.
“It represents an escalation,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts, calling it “incremental mission creep.
Lessons from the first war? Overwhelming American force and command and control from the battlefield is effective. By the way, what is the mission they speak of? Have they ever declared a mission? Do we have an objective beyond dropping some bombs when we are in the area and the weather is nice if Iraqis request it?
weakness because of focus on diplomacy or lack of military will is seen by Islamists as national decay and an invitation to into a full court press against any force or ideology which stands in their way.
It may sound like a bad dream, but their goal is to have the black flag of ISIS or battle flag of AQ flying over the WH. That may never happen, but there is no question they are in our back yard now and they will be attacking in our streets - probably with protestors and anarchists such as we see in Ferguson and Baltimore in the vanguard.
To use a basketball analogy that our current CnC is so fond of, he’s employing the old Georgetown 4 corner offense. He’s doing the minimum he has to do in order to play this out until he leaves office.
“Revealed: The Secret Immigration Chapter in Obama’s Trade Agreement”..........
Read it, it’s just a few articles down the screen.
There are some things that cannot be done in half steps:
1. When sliding into a base, you cannot just kind of slide. Kind of sliding is a tumbling fall that can often result in injurry.
2. Diving into water. A partial dive into water is called a belly flop. It hurts.
3. WAR! Sending in some troops gets soldiers killed. Restrictive Rules of Engagement get soldiers killed. Bureaucratic battle management gets soldiers killed. Go to win in a gory and fight with extreme prejudice or don't go at all. I hate that we cannot learn from the past on this.
On May 7, 1945, Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allies. How long were our troops there after the war, with relatively few leftist complaints about it?
On August 15, 1945, Japan surrendered to the Allies. How long were our troops there after the war, with relatively few leftist complaints about it?
On May 1, 2003, Bush declared victory in Iraq. The far left started complaining immediately and finally turned that victory into a defeat twelve years later. While I agree with the left that we should have toppled the old government and then gone home (perhaps leaving completely after Saddam’s hanging), leaving Saddam’s supporters to rebuild with an implicit threat to return if they didn’t behave, it was at best foolish for Obama to squander the stability that had been achieved at so high a cost.
He’s not even willing to use the level of airwar that brought down the dictator of Serbia. The timing of the withdrawal was aimed at winning him re-election in 2012. But I must say, that not since the original overthrow of Saddam has the White House had a consistent policy there. Even Bush seemed to be looking for a quick way out of the place after the surge. Otherwise he would have concluded a SOFA before he left office.
There are things Bush did that were bad. No argument there. But following the initial invasion and overthrow victory, the dynamics of the ensuing battle changed (Just as they did in Germany and Japan vollowing V-days in WWII). The new objective was to secure a stable government in Iraq. That was 90% complete as there were national elections held and by most accounts were fair and secure. The Iraqi government was still getting their affairs in order and solidifying their governance with development of a new constitution etc. As relative peace fell on Iraq, they started to debate the need to have American security forces in their country. That's how good things had gotten. For the new government, not familiar with SOFA, there was a concern that this showed weakness. Bush didn't press the issue at the time as we were trying to weave the delicate balance of relations to cement an everlasting alliance. So we stayed and provided security without a SOFA. Then Obama came to town on the heels of GW's warnings about total withdrawl.
It's important to keep history in context.
450 is just enough to get shot in the back by our “allies”, not enough to actually accomplish anything.
What do you think would have happened if we'd had elections in Germany in 1946, let all the former Nazis vote and run for office, and then accepted the result as the legitimate German government? That's the exact equivalent of what Bush did in Iraq.
The sensible choices were: (1) topple the government and then leave, with the implication that they could behave or we’d be back (count on the new government to like power too much to misbehave); or (2) stay long enough to fix their culture. Option Two sounds like at best a challenge, given the local culture, and an even bigger challenge when we elect someone who prefers an Islamic state.
Bush’s Iraq plan was unimpressive. Obama’s alternative was a treasonous war crime.
Aw, geez. Not "mission accomplished" again. The "mission accomplished" banner behind President Bush as he gave his speech on the Abraham Lincoln was to commemorate the accomplishment of the ship's mission, not the war itself. In the speech, Bush declared an end to "major combat operations" but stressed that much more struggle lay ahead.
That day, with Bush landing on the carrier in flight gear, enraged the left and the leftist media to the point of madness, which is why the disinformation you just posted continues to be repeated ad nauseam.
Fair enough, but: anyone who contends that we had “won” Iraq as of 2008 needs to consider that we left all the seeds of a new jihadi rebellion safe under the surface to sprout again. We did not take the necessary steps that were taken in Germany and Japan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.