Posted on 08/16/2014 6:53:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Recall that during the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama met with al-Malaki. The gist of their conversation was never reported, but al-Malaki immediately responded with a hard line on the SOFA that the Bush administration was trying to negotiate at the time.
As a consequence, the SOFA that Bush negotiated was necessarily short-term. And, when it came time to renew the SOFA, Obama couldn't be bothered to get involved...or to even give his administration's negotiating team any instructions. As a consequence, the SOFA lapsed without any renewal -- exactly how Obama had planned it in 2008.
So you think that the approval by Hillary Clinton is a sign of a wise policy?
Apparently the idea of forcibly yoking the three separate parts of present-day Iraq was originally that of one Gertrude Bell. (I happened to be rereading the Elizabeth Peters' Amelia Peabody series and saw reference to her there -- it wasn't just something I happened to know!)
saye do what?
Like it says in my tagline: Now we all have to pay the concequenses
Iraq was a success after the surge by General Petreaous. That arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave revered the success when he started to pull out the troops in 2009, and especially when he announced to the world and especially to the terrorists the date of the withdrawal
“...off if we had followed Joes idea of a loose coalition of 3 states.”
Why are you giving Biden credit for a 2005 State Department and Kurdish recommendation? It was voted down by the Shia and Sunni leadership and GWB accepted their choice of a central Republic vs. a federation of autonomous states.
Biden had NOTHING to do with this other than taking credit for something he had no involvement in.
This is not the end of Iraq. It is the end of a singular central republic in favor of a federation of autonomous states with a central parliament to address limited national issues. This is what was recommended in 2005 based upon the socio-political makeup and development of Iraq.
The question is can we ever overcome it? I doubt it
Well, we did take down Saddam in 2003, not 1991 and, contrary to what Cheney envisioned, it was replaced with a central Republic. This was contrary to the recommendation of the State Department and several think tanks for a federated republic as Cheney discusses. The weak central parliament of the federation Cheney speaks of would have dealt with the international issues Cheney mentioned. But you must appreciate the difference between 1991 and 2003. Cheney is is commenting on the force agreements of the 1990 UN resolution which did not specify removing Saddam, taking over Iraq or basing any troops long term in the country. All being different from the 2003 invasion the 1991 invasion is not comparable with the 2003 invasion. Different requirements, objectives, resources and end states.
In their own development almost all western governments were first a federation of states before a central republic was established. Iraq is post-tribal. It was not stable or responsible to replace one central government republic with another when the society was just exiting tribalism. But this is what the Shia and Sunni PMs wanted when the Iraq’s government form was being debated in 2005. Likely believing they’re prevail in a winner-take-all contest for power. So this is where it’s gotten them in 2014. Their having their big fight for power but it’s affecting more than just them. Only the State Department, some US think tanks and the Kurds agreed to a federation of states. Unfortunately, GWB decided for the majority Sunni-Shia desires not appreciating that each intended to dominate the government after eliminating their opponents.
So we’re back to 2005 except with vastly reduced US troops and a vastly larger insurgency. Neither GWB or Obama could do much when 85% of the Iraqi leadership wanted the US out of the country so they could wrest control of Iraq for themselves. If anyone made a mistake it was GWB for accepting the will of the 85% who simply wanted to kick each others’ assess rather than the recommendation of the analysts for a much more sustainable form of government. When all the power and wealth is controlled by a central government there’s going to be fighting.
So now it ‘devolves’ to the sustainable political structure of federated states. And this is one of the main reasons it was recommended, because they are an outgrowth of their tribes and are stable, cohesive and more responsible to their people.
Lastly don’t discount the influence and respect of US troops by all sides in Iraq. Most of them will trust a US-brokered agreement but not each other if nothing else for the sheer fact we had the power to enforce agreements and prosecute violations.
In the near future we will likely obtain basing agreements from the Kurds. After that perhaps a SOFA and basing agreements with the Shia. When the Sunni state solidifies post-ISIS they will likely request us there too to enforce and protect their position considering our influence with the other 2 groups. Particularly wrt the Sunnis choosing to continue prosecuting an insurgency where they’d be subject to Kurdish and Shia-based US forces attacking them.s government form was being debated in 2005. Likely believing they
She voted for the war, didn’t she?
tuche’
So by the time December 31, 2011 rolled around it was "Vaya con Dios" ... and under the terms of the agreement signed by the President of the United States in 2008, the U.S. military had no legal standing to be there. In fact, under international law they'd be considered an invading force in a foreign country.
Sure -- the U.S. military campaign was a great "success," and Iraq was a strong and stable nation after 2007.
Don't make me laugh. After Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government was toppled, Iraq was never any more stable than Vietnam was in 1973. All that's missing now is the helicopters lifting off from the roof of the U.S. embassy.
At the very least, there should have been an acknowledgement that once we went in, we would be there for at least 20 years. Or else it would just go back to being the same hellhole once we left.
If anyone in the Bush administration had said such a thing back in 2003, the U.S. would have elected that Easter Island looking dude in 2004.
Then we shouldn’t have gone in the first place, if we weren’t willing to make that commitment.
Obama’s declaration that the humanitarian crisis in Iraq is over is a missive to the media: don’t report any more stories about Iraq that will highlight my failure. Expect the suffering there to get blacked out like the IRS scandal.
Agree completely. Our USA-PRAVDA will NEVER humiliate this embarrassment of a CIC. They are totally complicit in the destruction of this country.
It’s all so confusing to you isn’t it? So you seek a solution in a brutal dictator? In case you didn’t notice Saddam was anything but stable. Too bad for your “stable dictator” idealistic fantasies. He waged war against nearly everyone around and within his country -and lost.
When the Iraqis reform their government to a federated republic validating what was recommended by many in 2005 will you then crow about the failure of Obama’s Iraq?
Nope.
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.