Replies

Panetta: No, I wasn't. I really thought that it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq.

(Pelley:) But the elected Prime Minister, Nouri Al-Maliki didn't want the U.S. force.

This is entirely contrary to the version told by Dick Cheney that I have heard. If Cheney is correct, or even arguably correct, it is outrageous for Pelley to report Obama's version as though it were unarguable fact. Cheney maintains that Obama deliberately promised too few troops in every offer, counter offer negotiation session so that Nouri Al-Maliki would have no practical option but to decline the American offer and so no status of force agreement would be signed, leaving the way clear for Obama to bug out.

This is the crux of the "who lost Iraq" argument. Cheney's version vs. Pelley's version. If Cheney is correct about why no status of force agreement was signed, then Obama's own secretary of defense indicts him.

D. CHENEY: We made major progress as a result of the decision President Bush made to go with the surge in ‘07 and ‘08. Had been a dramatic reduction in violence in the country. They were prepared for negotiations that would lead to a stay behind force of American trainers, people with intelligence and logistics capability, so that the Iraqi armed forces would be able to defend their own territory.
What happened was that Barack Obama came to office, and instead of negotiating a stay behind agreement, he basically walked away from it. Not only did the combat forces leave, but all of the other forces left as well. Our generals had recommended a level of 20,000 to stay behind, the White House said no and cut it ultimately to 3,000 and frankly that was inadequate to do the job, no agreement was ever reached, but the result was an Iraqi military that was unable to stand up to the terrorists when the ISIS came in from Syria a few days ago.

KELLY: You mentioned that, you know, the status of forces agreement and President Obama has taken a lot of heat for not negotiating that with Maliki. However, critics point out that it was President Bush who did sign the deal that said we’d get all U.S. forces out of there by the end of 2011.
D. CHENEY: With a status forces agreement for a stay behind force.
KELLY: And when the President — our current president sought to renegotiate that, al Maliki didn’t want it, that’s what the President’s defenders say. That he tried, he wanted to keep some stay behind forces that would protect the gains our troops had made, but Maliki made it too tough.
D. CHENEY: No, that’s not quite accurate, Megyn. What happened was our generals recommended a stay behind forces from 14,000 to 18,000. The White House rejected it. So the military came back with the recommendation of 10,000. The White House rejected it. They took it all the way down to 3,000. I think by the time they got to the level, the Iraqis looked at it. And believed that we weren’t serious, that Obama was absolutely committed to completely withdraw from Iraq, and they were unable to come to an agreement, but I think in part because the Iraqis didn’t think he really wanted one and he certainly didn’t push it. We have agreements like that with 40 nations around the world. They should have been able to come to an agreement with the Iraqis, and I think that failure to do so is what has precipitated the current

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/19/Megyn-Kelly-to-Dick-Cheney-History-Has-Proven-that-You-Got-It-Wrong-as-Well-in-Iraq-Sir

Cheney maintains that Obama deliberately promised too few troops in every offer, counter offer negotiation session so that Nouri Al-Maliki would have no practical option but to decline the American offer and so no status of force agreement would be signed...

I, for one, find that train of reasoning rather dubious.

It hinges on a number of inferences that are FAR from self-evident.

Care to take a crack at it, or do you accept it uncritically (which I can't bring myself to believe given your analytical acumen.)

You are framing the "who lost Iraq" argument around the SOFA, and whether or not the shia maliki had the authority to negotiate an "executive SOFA", cutting the parliament out of the process. That is disputable, subject to opinions

You can also say that Iraq was lost when the Iraq military and police were dissolved. Those forces were primarily Sunni who left with their weapons and munitions. These Sunni boycotted the election of Maliki and started a civil war and Bush entered the civil war on the side of the Shia, which he called the surge.

Those Sunni who fled from Petraeus' surge went to Syria to revolt against the Shia leader there, and have now returned to Iraq. So it was war on one front(Iraq) that switched to the other front(Syria), and is now being fought on bought fronts(Syria and Iraq). Sunni vs Shia.

Let's listen to Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and Paul Bremmer. Lets send 20,000-30,000 troops back in and spend 2 more trillion dollars so we can participate in the Sunni-Shia civil war.