Oy, you’re really reaching here, aren’t you? It just HAS to be Obama’s fault. It HAS to. And all this talk of “sides”. You picked “your” side and you are gonna defend it until death, aren’t you? Do you defend your chosen sportsball team like this?
We did push for a plan like that, but the Iraqi government pushed back. Obama and Maliki were talking about a plan that would have left 3500 or so American troops in Iraq. The Iraqis, however, demanded that those troops be subject to Iraqi criminal law (Abu Ghraib had something to do with that decision), and Washington demanded that they be exempt. There is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe the Iraqi Parliament was going to approve any immunity clause, and nobody in Washington wanted to leave American troops subject to foreign law.
The two sides could not reach an agreement, so the “way to stay” would have been either (1) accede to Iraqi demands and allow American troops to be at the mercy of the whims of a potentially-hostile government, or (2) disregard Iraqi sovereignty and impose our will anyway. One of those “ways” is an act of war; the other would very likely have led to the spectacle of an American soldier being arrested, tried, and executed by the Iraqis for some trivial offense as retaliation for abuses at Abu Ghraib. Which of those would you have supported?
There’s no other way for one side to force the other to agree. When the Iraqis were not really keen to make a deal, either you agree to what they want or you overpower them by brute force; you can’t “make” somebody else agreeable.
As long as we want oil from the Middle East (and we do, and will for the foreseeable future, if only to keep the Europeans and East Asians supplied), what happens there IS our problem.
Originally Posted by coremelt
So tell me Hewey Logan, why is that you want more US troops to die?
This is just as valid a question as the “should we have left, yes / no” thing that you keep mindlessly repeating. Admit it Hewey Logan, you just think that all Democrats are weak and timid and that if there was a big strong Republican in office he would have just said to Iraq “we’re keeping troops there” and Iraq would just have trembled in fear and agreed, just because Republican’s are strong…
That’s what your entire argument boils down to. Not only is it false, it’s a childish argument. Especially because Obama and Madame President Clinton will be two of the most hawkish Democratic Presidents ever.
Four more years of Obama (As in Clinton in office). Sounds great to me. Oh and don’t forget the economy was great under Bill and he’s likely to be an informal advisor on the economy to Madame President. I bet that makes your blood boil doesn’t it Hewey?
You do realise you’re accepting the opinions of the two Canadians on this issue, right? 
I think at this point it’s essentially unknowable if there could have been a way to resolve the deadlock on this point, so it may just be one if those “agree to disagree” situations. But for me, the accounts seem clear that the sticking point was that the Iraq government, responding to Iraqi popular opinion and the Abu Ghraib abuses, was insisting that US servicemen had to be subject to Iraqi law.
I can’t see the US ever agreeing to that (heck, the US doesn’t even agree to that when its troops are stationed in the territory of much closer allies, like NATO). And I think if Obama had agreed to that as a condition of staying, he would have been pilloried by the Republicans.
I don’t think that this is a black-or-white issue, with no options but “you’re in or you’re out, and in is bad and out is good.”
The starting point for US politicians has to be an assessment of what is in the best interests of the US. Most US politicians seem to agree that a stable Iraq is in the best interests of the US, and that it’s also in the best interests of the US that there not be radical terrorist groups trying to destabilise Iraq, and not attacking close US allies, such as the French.
Once you accept those two premises, then the question is how best to achieve those goals? There’s clearly a military component to those goals, but there’s also an international political component: what steps can the US take that will be welcomed by the sovereign Iraqi government, and more broadly, will not be seen as too heavy-handed by the other Muslim countries in the Middle East?
When the issues are considered in that light, it’s quite consistent for Democrats to have been in favour of full withdrawal five years ago, when Iraq wanted the US to withdraw the bulk of its troops, and now, in light of changed circumstances, for Democrats to support a more limited intervention, at the request of the Iraqi government, and that does not involve “boots on the ground”.
It’s always a good policy to be willing to re-evaluate one’s own position on an issue in light of changed circumstances. The situation in Iraq is complicated. Responding to changes in the situation there is simply good policy.
Because Obama.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe not. They didn’t apologize.
No, I don’t think Democrats are weak and timid. Just that they put politics before anything else. Including lives.
Couple other great articles on the matter I just read -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/united-states-and-iraq-had-not-expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-pulling-all-us-troops-out-iraq-was-not-my-decision
Long reads but incredibly interesting. The gist which are I wasn’t as wrong as I was starting to believe a few posts ago - Obama vowed to get us out of there and support his voting base. There were options he not only didn’t pursue, but avoided to make that happen.
Politics over lives, in my opinion.
Doesn’t make my blood boil at all. It just makes me think things internationally are only going to get worse. Four more years of thinking about ones own political ass above all else. Lives be damned.
I like Canadians. They have some great hockey players.
Snowmobiling up there can’t be beat either. Beautiful, fun country.
Agreed.
Agree with that too.
But read the articles I linked to above. Because they add and important element to your premise - that Obama knew what he wanted to accomplish in Iraq - to get out, regardless of the points you rightly point out above.
I think that was a mistake. And a mistake many thought at the time.
Since this thread is no longer about the jail issue, does anyone else think it might be a good idea to have it renamed?
I keep absentmindedly coming back expecting to read about the jail thing, and then get reminded that the thread is now about the legitimacy of U.S. actions in Iraq.
Shall do - thanks for linking to them.
You cannot possibly be this unaware. The GOP Congress and Senate has spent the last eight years refusing to do their jobs and obstructing everything possible just to please their political base. McCain has just said that they will never confirm a Supreme Court judge put forward by a Democrat President. And if it would help them keep the Presidency then a Republican President would absolutely keep US troops on the ground and dying on a weekly basis just to project a strong image, even when there was no actual point to them being there.
Both parties will put politics over everything when they need to, what a bizarre belief that somehow the Republicans value the sanctity of soldiers lives more than the Dems. Have you forgotten that it was Bush that lied about WMD to start the Iraq war?
Please answer this Hewey: 4486 US Soldiers died in Iraq (more than the number of deaths in 9/11), because of a lie that Bush told to congress. Why are you not screaming for him to be tried in court for this? Why do not care about the lives of those Soldiers? What were their deaths for?
I blame Harry Reid.
If he said that then it’s wrong. Or wrong in that I don’t agree with it.
Again, this is the “adult conversation” I’m not ready for?
It’s obstructionism when the minority prevents the majority from doing anything. It’s not obstructionism when the majority ignores the minority who’s not doing anything and does their jobs anyway.
Isn’t that what Harry Reid is doing? He’s the minority leader but won’t let anything even the Democrats (along with a few, deciding in the matter, Republicans) propose, or have added, added amendments that are voted on.
If that’s not obstructionism, I’m not understanding your point then.
The focus has been on the majority control of the House and how they can’t get anything moving. I don’t have a problem with that for the most part. But it doesn’t stop the Senate from getting things going. Except that Reid doesn’t want the voting to happen because it would expose Senate members from having to stand for anything, or vote for anything that might tarnish their image.
That’s lame.
It gets back to my point either here or another thread where what I want to see is their side - tell me and show me which way you’re going to decide on things. I want to know so I can vote on you accordingly.
This bullshit to protect people from taking sides on anything is, again, lame, tiresome, and dishonest to the voters who voted them in.
“Bullshit to protect people from taking sides on anything” is exactly what “But both sides do it!” is. No, both sides don’t always do it, and when they do, it’s not to the same degree. The Republicans are orders of magnitude more obstructionist than the Democrats, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.