Panetta: U.S. In Syria Too Late, Left Iraq Too Soon [American Blood Sacrificed In Vain: Impeach!]

CBS60 Minutes ^ | September 19, 2014 | Scott Pelley 60 Minutes

[Steelfish]

Panetta: U.S. In Syria Too Late, Left Iraq Too Soon

ISIS seized a third of Iraq that the U.S. secured with ten years of sacrifice. In an interview for 60 Minutes, Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said ISIS flourished because the U.S. got involved in Syria too late and left Iraq too soon. On the 47th season premiere Sunday, "60 Minutes" will report from Iraq and Syria on ISIS -- what it is, what it wants, and how to defeat it.

Pelley: Back when you watched the stars and stripes being lowered for the last time in Baghdad, were you confident in that moment that pulling out was the right thing to do?

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

But the elected Prime Minister, Nouri Al-Maliki didn't want the U.S. force. As Iraq moved on, on its own, civil war broke out in Syria. The U.S. stayed largely on the sidelines but Panetta says the national security team urged the president to do more.

Panetta: The real key was how can we develop a leadership group among the opposition that would be able to take control. And my view was to have leverage to do that, we would have to provide the weapons and the training in order for them to really be willing to work with us in that effort.

Pelley: But with virtually his entire national security team unanimous on this, that's not the decision the president made.

Panetta: I think the president's concern, and I understand it, was that he had a fear that if we started providing weapons, we wouldn't know where those weapons would wind up... My view was, "You have to begin somewhere."

[VerySadAmerican]

It’s kinda’ hard for democrats to promote “nation building” after they accused Bush of doing it.

Panetta could have resigned in protest. The fact that he didn’t tells me he has no cred on the matter.

[odds]

I’ve a theory, Do you (not you, Steelfish) know why the kurds & peshmerga been fighting tooth and nail since IS appeared in iraq? It’s cuz they’re the minority there & they fight for what they Believe is their land. Do you know why the american trained arab-iraqi army put down their guns & abandoned their weapons soon after IS began fighting them? Because their loyalty shifts quite easily & money can go so far & can’t buy loyalty or conviction. Kurds are sunni & been fighting sunni/salafist IS. Not Iraqi-army. This isn’t simply a matter of training or arming a grp.

[melsec]

He’s half right which is easy for a half-wit.

[RginTN]

60 minutes is still around? Wow.

A few years ago I checked the channel listing and they had the most boring subjects...guess they would rather ignore the Obama regime scandals and books by authors critical of this Regime.

[nathanbedford]

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.

[nathanbedford]

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

[nikos1121]

Hey, Leon, your conscience get to you? That’s great, but the US needs heroes not cowards. Had you thought this way why didn’t you rescind?

[papertyger]

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.)

[DeaconRed]

"Panetta could have resigned in protest. The fact that he didn’t tells me he has no cred on the matter."

I agree. I never trusted Peter Nose. Total incompetence.

[WashingtonSource]

Panetta is a day late and a dollar short.

[mazda77]

Hmmmm, alright tyger, I submit that the one who threw the mud on the wall is the one responsible to explain why he did it. Don’t just throw it up there and challenge everyone else as to why it is there.

[nathanbedford]

In my subsequent post (#7) I quoted the transcript from Cheney's exchange on Fox with Kelly which corrects my somewhat faulty memory expressed in my original post (#6) to the effect that the step-down offers by Obama occurred with the Iraqis when in fact Cheney alleges that it occurred in negotiations with Obama's own Defense Department.

Nevertheless, Cheney's version is that Obama deliberately scuttled any hope of the status of forces agreement thereby making inevitable the scuttle of American forces from Iraq which, in turn, led to the current catastrophe and makes it Obama's responsibility.

My point about the article is that Pelley had no business pontificating as he did in the face of Cheney's assertions without at least dealing with them.

Whether as partygoer seems to imply, I have a responsibility for going deeper into the facts of the matter then I have outlined in my second post (#7), is an assertion I reject. One is entitled to at least open the subject with the assertions of a former vice president of the United States of America. If partygoer has facts to the contrary of Cheney's assertions, let him, as Mazda 77 suggests, offer them to us in rebuttal.

The above remark is not intended to be snarky but to frame the issues and in no way is intended to reflect on partygoer, the value of whose posts speak for themselves.

[BilLies]

Scott Pelly is one of Obama’s fella tis t.

[Wolfie]

Grab a weapon, Leon, and head on back.
.

[Paine in the Neck]

Panetta could have resigned in protest. The fact that he didn’t tells me he has no cred on the matter.

Panetta is as dirty as the rest of them. He's just more canny at maintaining distance between his public appearance and his behind the curtain actions.

[papertyger]

Simply stated, it is not obvious to me (and may well be due to simple ignorance on my part) that the natural reaction of Maliki not getting as many troops as he originally wanted would be to refuse to give legal protection to ANY troops, thereby letting Obama off the hook to provide protection.

Indeed, one would think the adage about half a pie being better than none, particularly when said “pie” could well be viewed as a trip switch or trigger to further American involvement (a la South Korea, Cold War West Germany, and Post War Japan) should the task prove more than the allotted forces could handle.

I in no way intended to imply you bear a responsibility to dig deeper into the Cheney rationale. I simply assumed you would share my suspicions (talk about projection), but chose to follow the party line for whatever reason.

Please forgive my presumption, but let me assure you it is born out of the deepest of respect for your opinion as you have articulated it through the years.

[Vinnie]

Diane Sawyer retired, YEA! Her drippy demeanor drove me crazy.
Scott Pelley, please follow suit.
Cannot stand that guy. Disgusting...and more.
Talks so slow , as.. if.. he.. is.. waiting.. for ..the.. audience.. to.. comprehend .. the.. words.
ARGH !!!

[VRW Conspirator]

Hey, Leon, your conscience get to you?

Doubt it. He is probably pimping for a book deal, a "tell all".

[nathanbedford]

I am reluctant to post this over my name because it is probably only fragments but I seem to remember something that I heard but I do have the impression that Cheney was saying that the Iraqis felt that Obama's ultimate offer of only 3000 troops was so pathetically inadequate that it would cause them more problems with domestic politics and avail them nothing in terms of actual military force. This is a separate consideration from Maliki wanting freedom to oppress Sunnis, it means that he was under pressure from factions in his own government who are simply anti-American and he could not justify taking the political hit when there was no military value.

If you look closely at Cheney's actual words from the transcript he does cite these factors:

"believed that we weren’t serious"-which I take to mean that Obama's offer was so small that it was believed to be frivolous.

"believed… that Obama was absolutely committed to completely withdraw from Iraq"-meaning that negotiations were a charade and therefore not worth pursuing.

" 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."-Meaning Obama did not push it. Is Cheney alluding to information he derived directly from Iraqi sources?

"We have agreements like that with 40 nations around the world. They should have been able to come to an agreement with the Iraqis"-meaning that it was easily obtainable as evidenced by other agreements and its absence confirms lack of desire on Obama's part.

Elsewhere in the transcript Cheney avers that 3000 troops was inadequate to do the job.

This only explores Cheney's mindset, of course it does not tell us what the Iraqis were thinking. It's quite possible that there was no agreement obtainable because Maliki did not want American troops to interfere with his plans to put the screws to the Sunnis. That opens the question whether Obama should have intimidated Maliki into such an agreement or whether Obama and Maliki were both delighted with the impasse for different reasons.

I cannot close without observing that this is one more piece of evidence of Bush's naïveté over the malevolent intentions of Obama.