This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

User avatar
By BJWilliams
Registration Days Posts
#498561
Sigh...this is why I don't envy the folks put in this position even if I disagree with them...and if I decided on the smoldering crater, I'd rather not use nukes. That is a final option reserved as a last resort
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#498567
BYD- I agree that right now getting involved in Syria is a sticky wicket. Early on in the process it would have been 'easier' had we backed the Syrian Rebels. They HATE Assad. They hate ISIS too, but they hate Assad more because he killed more of them. Since those early days, Iran has injected their brand of religious zealots into the mix and Russia is involved. Our response was to spend millions training those who would fight ISIS but not Assad. Stupidity at its finest. IMO the best option now is to provide arms and some 'trainers' for anyone willing to fight Assad AND ISIS. This is actually something we may be doing But I don't know for sure
I think your point about Afghanistan makes several of my points. We promised to help the Afghani's after they drove the Soviets out with out help. The Soviets were beat back.......and we didn't honor our promises. Because we did not we sowed the seeds for the Taliban to take hold and grow.
Again, I don't have a problem with what we did in Afg in the 80's or Iraq in the 2000's. My problem is our inability to keep our promises.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#498568
thepostman wrote:I remember when I was 16 and I thought nukes were the answer to all our problems. Then I grew up.
I believe it was called Missle Command!
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#498570
flamehunter wrote:Letting the enemy know your plans is never a good idea.
Really? B/c we warned the Japs what we would do if they didn't surrender. They seemed to get the message after the second bomb.
User avatar
By bluejacket
Posts
#498576
Purple Haize wrote:However, The Surge worked. The Anti insurgency strategy worked and was continuing to work. Gen Patreus was a brilliant choice to take over the US Strategy. There was no ISIS until this administration signaled it was hell bent on leaving and the consequences be damned.
The effectiveness of the "surge" and anti-insurgent strategy is overrated.

IS existed before the current President came into office. As recently as 2010, they were down to 8 top leaders, commanders, and recruiters. Certainly not functioning at the scale that they are currently, but they did exist.
User avatar
By bluejacket
Posts
#498577
ATrain wrote:Really? B/c we warned the Japs what we would do if they didn't surrender. They seemed to get the message after the second bomb.
Not exactly.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#498579
bluejacket wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:However, The Surge worked. The Anti insurgency strategy worked and was continuing to work. Gen Patreus was a brilliant choice to take over the US Strategy. There was no ISIS until this administration signaled it was hell bent on leaving and the consequences be damned.
The effectiveness of the "surge" and anti-insurgent strategy is overrated.

IS existed before the current President came into office. As recently as 2010, they were down to 8 top leaders, commanders, and recruiters. Certainly not functioning at the scale that they are currently, but they did exist.
So what you are saying is it wasn't remotely relevant in 2010. Why was that? What has changed?
How in the World is The Surge over rated? It worked
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#498594
BuryYourDuke wrote:A troop surge almost always "works". The problem is we can't and shouldn't be thinking we can have hundreds of thousands of troops somewhere forever to keep the peace.
Did we have hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq? The Surge was only around 20k
By Humble_Opinion
Registration Days Posts
#498598
Purple Haize wrote:
BuryYourDuke wrote:A troop surge almost always "works". The problem is we can't and shouldn't be thinking we can have hundreds of thousands of troops somewhere forever to keep the peace.
Did we have hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq? The Surge was only around 20k
20k in addition to the nearly 120k that were already there. The statement that the surge wasn't all that successful is just rubbish though. Sure, in the months directly following the surge there were some higher death/attack totals, but that was to be expected given that we were actively seeking a fight. By the fall of '07, the situation was taking a turn for the better and Iraq became much more stable throughout 2008 all the way up to the point where Obama decided to leave without having an established up to the SOF agreement.
User avatar
By thepostman
Registration Days Posts
#498599
Purple Haize wrote:
BuryYourDuke wrote:A troop surge almost always "works". The problem is we can't and shouldn't be thinking we can have hundreds of thousands of troops somewhere forever to keep the peace.
Did we have hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq? The Surge was only around 20k
Wow, that is way off.
User avatar
By bluejacket
Posts
#498602
Humble_Opinion wrote:20k in addition to the nearly 120k that were already there. The statement that the surge wasn't all that successful is just rubbish though. Sure, in the months directly following the surge there were some higher death/attack totals, but that was to be expected given that we were actively seeking a fight. By the fall of '07, the situation was taking a turn for the better and Iraq became much more stable throughout 2008 all the way up to the point where Obama decided to leave without having an established up to the SOF agreement.
You can criticize the current president for a lot, but the deadline for leaving Iraq was set by George W. Bush.
User avatar
By bluejacket
Posts
#498603
To be clear, I did not say that the surge was a failure. It did one thing well: we killed a lot of terrorists. But there were many consequences from the surge that were extremely detrimental to our medium and long term goals.
User avatar
By alabama24
Registration Days Posts
#498606
Y'all do realize that "hundreds of thousands" is plural, right? Wouldn't you need at least 200k to make that correct? lol
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#498612
alabama24 wrote:Y'all do realize that "hundreds of thousands" is plural, right? Wouldn't you need at least 200k to make that correct? I chortle audibly.
Actually that's what I was thinking. I knew we had over 100k but I didn't think we had 200 or 300,000
Was I off on The Surge numbers? Was it more than 20-25k? I'm going off the top of my head and not The Google
There is no reason to think we would need to keep 100k soldiers in Iraq for infinity. As the Iraq situation continued to settle then we could draw down.
How long to keep troops there? I don't know. I am not sure fighting wars on a timeline is a good thing. We kept troops in Western Europe to protect them from a Soviet threat for how many years now? Is Radical Islam any different? We also wouldn't need the same number of troops as in Europe
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#498613
bluejacket wrote:To be clear, I did not say that the surge was a failure. It did one thing well: we killed a lot of terrorists. But there were many consequences from the surge that were extremely detrimental to our medium and long term goals.
What goals were damaged by The Surge?
Yes W set the date for the end of the SOFA It was a great move. It gave time for a sovereign Iraqi Government to negotiate with the US for keeping troops in THEIR country. It also negates the perceptions by some that we were Crusaders and engaging in Imperialism. The fact that there was no new SOFA is squarely on Obama. He accelerated the original troop draw down plan, backed and declared the runner up the winner in the Iraqi election (their 2nd I believe) then failed to negotiate a SOFA with him. He had 0 intention of agreeing to a SOFA sight he Iraqi backed government. He wanted OUT. That was his priority
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#498616
thepostman wrote:The numbers were a bit higher
According to Wiki (and you can always trust them :wink: ) it was 20k
User avatar
By bluejacket
Posts
#498620
Purple Haize wrote:
bluejacket wrote:To be clear, I did not say that the surge was a failure. It did one thing well: we killed a lot of terrorists. But there were many consequences from the surge that were extremely detrimental to our medium and long term goals.
What goals were damaged by The Surge?
Yes W set the date for the end of the SOFA It was a great move. It gave time for a sovereign Iraqi Government to negotiate with the US for keeping troops in THEIR country. It also negates the perceptions by some that we were Crusaders and engaging in Imperialism. The fact that there was no new SOFA is squarely on Obama. He accelerated the original troop draw down plan, backed and declared the runner up the winner in the Iraqi election (their 2nd I believe) then failed to negotiate a SOFA with him. He had 0 intention of agreeing to a SOFA sight he Iraqi backed government. He wanted OUT. That was his priority
The chief end goals for the surge were as follows (http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/rls/78567.htm): 1. Hold provincial elections. 2. Allow Sunnis to participate in government. 3. Form a committee to reform the Iraqi constitution. 4. Pass a national hydrocarbon sharing law to appease divisions (Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia).

The first goal was temporarily successful but also enhanced internal divisions. The second, third, and fourth were never fully accomplished. Attempting to implement them destabilized Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki and others used the relief created by the surge to destroy the country from within while our troops defended a highly unpopular government. That annihilated the shreds of credibility that we had worked to piece together with the population for years. Those four points were intended as benchmarks toward the chief goal of a unified Iraq where the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds could at least tolerate each other enough to buy into the political process. That was the long term goal of the surge, but has clearly ended in failure.

The SOFA could not be renewed because the Iraqis refused to grant our troops legal immunity. That was and should be a nonstarter. If we would have attempted to overtly pressure the government to cave to our demands or forced them to agree to a new SOFA that reversed the positions of the old SOFA (namely the deadline of December 31, 2011 signed by Bush), we would have been back at square one. The population would have hated us even more than they already do.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#498626
Yeah, our President is t the best negotiator. His actions in accelerating the draw down and putting a time on departure of all troops sorta submarines the SOFA. When he said he only wanted 3k troops there and EVERYONE was saying that 10k were the minimum showed he was not serious. He only wanted to say that the US was out of Iraq.
Al-Malaki finished 2nd and was backed by the Obama Administration. THAT is what accelerated the demise of Iraq. I am hard pressed to find one thing this Administration has done right in handling Iraq
User avatar
By bluejacket
Posts
#498629
Purple Haize wrote:Yeah, our President is t the best negotiator. His actions in accelerating the draw down and putting a time on departure of all troops sorta submarines the SOFA. When he said he only wanted 3k troops there and EVERYONE was saying that 10k were the minimum showed he was not serious. He only wanted to say that the US was out of Iraq.
Al-Malaki finished 2nd and was backed by the Obama Administration. THAT is what accelerated the demise of Iraq. I am hard pressed to find one thing this Administration has done right in handling Iraq
The SOFA deadline was the final disaster and that was signed by Bush. It was not Obama. We had to have all combat forces out of all Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 and out of the country by December 31, 2011. Following December 4, 2008, when SOFA was approved by Iraq's presidential council, we should have immediately begun large troop withdrawals. That single decision signaled it was game over.

al-Maliki was backed as PM (and other positions) by Bush and Obama from 2006 to 2014.
By Humble_Opinion
Registration Days Posts
#498639
bluejacket wrote:The SOFA deadline was the final disaster and that was signed by Bush. It was not Obama. We had to have all combat forces out of all Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009 and out of the country by December 31, 2011. Following December 4, 2008, when SOFA was approved by Iraq's presidential council, we should have immediately begun large troop withdrawals. That single decision signaled it was game over.

al-Maliki was backed as PM (and other positions) by Bush and Obama from 2006 to 2014.
For the entirety of his presidency, W and his administration had argued that any sort of timetable for withdrawal would be a huge tactical error and would essentially telegraph to the enemies of the US and a free and stable Iraq that we would quit fighting for our goals at a specific time. That debate hit critical mass in 2008 as the presidential election cycle heated up and the domestic issues relating to the economy began to make their presence known. Because of these issues, W's administration allowed unprecedented access to the Obama transition team on all matters, foreign and domestic (remember the Office of the President Elect??).

When consulted, the members of the W adminstration have always maintained that the SOFA in 2008 left the door open for a new SOFA in 2011 that would include a new commitment of residual forces. So it's a bit disingenuine to say that is was purely Bush's agreement that resulted in the present situation. We know from internal documents and interviews with former Obama administration members (like Gates) that Obama was indeed in negotiations to establish a new SOFA in 2011 that would keep a residual force to collect intel, conduct training, and if needed participate in raids. The fact that it failed cannot be blamed on W. There are conflicting reports and reasons why it failed. There have been plenty of assertions made by Iraqi leaders, including Maliki himself, that Obama seemed reluctant to establish a new SOFA that would leave behind what Admiral Mullen and Gates had requested (~16k).

That having been said, I think the Iranian backed Shia are the one's that derailed any possibility of having any sort of new agreement brokered. As Michael Gordon reported in the NYT, the Obama administration insisted that any new deal be passed through parliament and include the necessary measures to ensure immunity for US service members. Maliki, and other administration officials thought that the agreement could be done at the executive level by Maliki himself (as Maliki wanted). Obama refused though... This allowed the Iranian backed Shia, to derail any sort of agreement with ease, effectively ending the discussion for any US residual force. It also allowed the Obama Admin to maintain a campaign promise to withdraw ALL US forces just as the re-election cycle was heating up.

There is also another interesting nugget in this article by Gordon:
Without American forces to train and assist Iraqi commandos, the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq is still active in Iraq and is increasingly involved in Syria. With no American aircraft to patrol Iraqi airspace, Iraq has become a corridor for Iranian flights of military supplies to Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, American officials say. It is also a potential avenue for an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, something the White House is laboring to avoid.
We didn't know it at the time, but that "AQ insurgent group in Iraq" is now a part of what we call ISIS. The US was not perfect, but we were the only stabilizing force in Iraq, particularly after 2007 when the surge improved the security situation on the ground. Us leaving left a huge vacuum and it effectively sealed the deals to allow Iran to become a huge force in Iraq, while simultaneously contributing to the rise of ISIS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world ... .html?_r=0
User avatar
By bluejacket
Posts
#498645
Humble_Opinion wrote:For the entirety of his presidency, W and his administration had argued that any sort of timetable for withdrawal would be a huge tactical error and would essentially telegraph to the enemies of the US and a free and stable Iraq that we would quit fighting for our goals at a specific time. That debate hit critical mass in 2008 as the presidential election cycle heated up and the domestic issues relating to the economy began to make their presence known. Because of these issues, W's administration allowed unprecedented access to the Obama transition team on all matters, foreign and domestic (remember the Office of the President Elect??).
He did argue that but he still signed the SOFA. Negotiations for SOFA began in Jan. 2008. The final draft of the agreement was finished by the middle of Oct. 2008, which included a 2011 withdraw date (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03793.html). All of this was before the 2008 election.

The Office of President Elect had no real authority and it was far from unprecedented. Bush was in charge and he signed SOFA. Bush didn't have to sign any agreement, but he signed this one. That you would insinuate that Obama was controlling/manipulating Bush as president elect is laughable.
Humble_Opinion wrote:When consulted, the members of the W adminstration have always maintained that the SOFA in 2008 left the door open for a new SOFA in 2011 that would include a new commitment of residual forces. So it's a bit disingenuine to say that is was purely Bush's agreement that resulted in the present situation. We know from internal documents and interviews with former Obama administration members (like Gates) that Obama was indeed in negotiations to establish a new SOFA in 2011 that would keep a residual force to collect intel, conduct training, and if needed participate in raids. The fact that it failed cannot be blamed on W. There are conflicting reports and reasons why it failed. There have been plenty of assertions made by Iraqi leaders, including Maliki himself, that Obama seemed reluctant to establish a new SOFA that would leave behind what Admiral Mullen and Gates had requested (~16k).

That having been said, I think the Iranian backed Shia are the one's that derailed any possibility of having any sort of new agreement brokered. As Michael Gordon reported in the NYT, the Obama administration insisted that any new deal be passed through parliament and include the necessary measures to ensure immunity for US service members. Maliki, and other administration officials thought that the agreement could be done at the executive level by Maliki himself (as Maliki wanted). Obama refused though... This allowed the Iranian backed Shia, to derail any sort of agreement with ease, effectively ending the discussion for any US residual force. It also allowed the Obama Admin to maintain a campaign promise to withdraw ALL US forces just as the re-election cycle was heating up.

There is also another interesting nugget in this article by Gordon:
Without American forces to train and assist Iraqi commandos, the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq is still active in Iraq and is increasingly involved in Syria. With no American aircraft to patrol Iraqi airspace, Iraq has become a corridor for Iranian flights of military supplies to Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, American officials say. It is also a potential avenue for an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, something the White House is laboring to avoid.
We didn't know it at the time, but that "AQ insurgent group in Iraq" is now a part of what we call ISIS. The US was not perfect, but we were the only stabilizing force in Iraq, particularly after 2007 when the surge improved the security situation on the ground. Us leaving left a huge vacuum and it effectively sealed the deals to allow Iran to become a huge force in Iraq, while simultaneously contributing to the rise of ISIS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world ... .html?_r=0
Bush apologists maintained that there was opportunity for renegotiation, but the chances of the Iraqis giving reasonable terms to us were virtually zero. The Iraqis craved independence and their leadership were never going to give our troops immunity to save them short of a near collapse of the state. That is exactly what happened in June 2014. Even then, immunity was given to us through diplomatic assurances and not formal agreements. The Bush and Obama administrations agree that immunity is fundamental and they are both correct.

The SOFA deadline gave us zero leverage in any negotiation with Iraq and quite frankly the Iraqis didn't want to negotiate with us post SOFA. They wanted us out of their country and that is what the 2008 agreement guaranteed. Most of the terrorists/insurgents disbanded and waited for us to leave for three years or they moved into Syria. Why fight and die if you only have to wait until December 31, 2011 at the latest for your main adversary to leave? Everyone with any interests in Iraq waited for that deadline before making their next major moves.

Any new agreement has to pass through the proper procedures in the Iraqi government. Just like the 2008 SOFA. Both administrations agree on this point as well. If you are unwilling to accept Iraq's procedures, the options become far more limited and far less appealing.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#498652
So basically it's all Bush's fault and President Obama did nothing to make the situation worse
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#498653
Purple Haize wrote:So basically it's all Bush's fault and President Obama did nothing to make the situation worse
That is the liberal MO when it comes to debating Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dondi Costin - LU President

Ive gone there a few times since moving to texas b[…]

There’s a cerebral side to the game, which M[…]

NCAA Realignment Megathread

Duke Gonzaga B12? https://larrybrownsports.com/co[…]

FlameFans Fantasy Baseball

We are on!!! Hope to see everyone tonight at 9:30[…]