Is there even the remotest chance that Jordan would decide or be forced to join this theoretical Caliphate? Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Why is that, exactly?
Wouldn’t any self-respecting Caliphate like to swallow up Jordan, too?
Jordan seems pretty stable and has a pretty solid military. Or are you just talking about what a caliphate dreamy dreams would be?
No, Obama made an offer that may or may not have safeguarded the stability that Obama saw in 2011. The Iraqis rejected that offer. You need to produce a quote where Obama said the stability he saw would end if a few thousand mostly trainers and advisers remained in Iraq after 2011. Obama did not seek to keep combat forces in Iraq to maintain the level of stability that had been achieved by that point in time.
You claim Obama lied. You have produced nothing to back your claim up.
No, Obama made an offer that may or may not have safeguarded the stability that Obama saw in 2011. The Iraqis rejected that offer. You need to produce a quote where Obama said the stability he saw would end if a few thousand mostly trainers and advisers remained in Iraq after 2011. Obama did not seek to keep combat forces in Iraq to maintain the level of stability that had been achieved by that point in time.
You claim Obama lied for political reasons for knowing Iraq was not stable and saying that it was. You have produced nothing to back your claim up.
Sorry about that, I thought we all were.
The “dream” Caliphate would naturally include Jordan; realistically speaking, though, I certainly agree that that won’t happen in a long, long time.
Nope. I said either he lied, or he didn’t understand the geopolitical situation. It is his job to understand the geopolitical situation when ending a war. And I concede that it may not have been a malicious lie, but a purely political one.
Now, just to be clear, I’m OK with him lying if that’s what it takes to get us out of there. But if you don’t think he lied, then you have to accept that he was less than competent in assessing the situation. You can’t have it both ways.
You can take your pick. It doesn’t matter to me.
Personally, I think he lied (for political reasons). Of course that can’t be proven, but my sense is that he knew very well what was likely to happen once we left. That was not rocket surgery-- most of us here predicted something like this would happen.
Good for you. Did you base your prediction to be the result of “x” thousand US combat troops NOT staying in Iraq for “x” amount of years? What you are calling Obama’s political lie was not a prediction. It was a statement of Iraq’s condition at that time. I see nowhere that Obama made a prediction that was counter to your highly sophisticated and expertly informed forecast that something bad would happen someday sometime for some reason. He said Iraq faced challenges ‘ahead’. That is a point you great predictors of doom seem to conveniently leave out of the argument.
How did telling the troops at Fort Bragg that they were leaving Iraq in a stable condition through the sacrifice they and their fellow soldiers made, have anything to do with what it took to get us out of there? Had Obama not lied as you think, would we still have troops there? That makes no sense at all.
I’m thinking of “Arabia” as all Arabic-speaking lands east of Egypt; some Arab nationalists would define it to include North Africa as well, that’s why there was once and briefly a “United Arab Republic” of Syria and Egypt.
He did. Bush signed the geopolitical SOFA in 2008 with its timeline for withdrawing all US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 because that is what the sovereign nation of Iraq wanted and demanded and the President of the United States signed it:
Here is a report about it just before Obama took office:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/19/iraq.sofa/index.html
Quite the geopolitical document and agreement don’t you think?
In sure Obama knew about it.
And look at how successful that was! That’s the problem with pan-Arabist dreams, and why they tend to fall apart; there’s enough mistrust and dislike between various Arab countries to make it feasible.
It also didn’t include Jordan and when Arab Nationalists under Arafat tried to take over they got squashed by Jordan’s army and went scurrying off to Lebanon with their tail tucked firmly between their legs.
I’m not sure why BG is so sure the Hashemites would allow themselves to get swallowed up like that.
Can you quote the part that says Iraq will fall into civil war within a few years of the US leaving? Because that’s what happened. If the document doesn’t say that, the no, it’s not a geopolitical document worth paper it was written on.
Why on earth would that SOFA from 2008 ever have to predict the exact future of Iraq
to include that a few thousand foreign Jihadists and former Baathist, Saddam Hussein loyalist, thugs would launch a rapid and fierce military attack on predominantly Sunni cities causing a large part of the US trained military to flee instead of fight - shocking the entire world.
Perhaps they should have consulted you when writing the agreement - but why that too?
The SOFA is a document that geopolitically neither has nor had a purpose or intent to guarantee or even assure half-heartedly that all sectarian divides within Iraq and within the region would never ever result in a major resumption of civil war and sectarian violence within Iraq. The SOFA had one primary purpose which was to establish the timetable and legal protections of US troops as the US government was being told by the people of Iraq that the US occupation of Iraq must come to an end. It was sovereign people telling the invaders that their time as occupiers was coming to a specific end. That also means the established government in Iraq was no longer expecting US men and women in uniform to be the ones preventing civil war from breaking out. Ridding Iraq of an invading army and remnants of occupation was the choice of the legislature of Iraq at the time. Its called democracy in action which Bush morphed into the reason why Americans were fighting and dying there when his March 17 2003 lies were exposed within weeks of announcing to the world of his decision and intent to invade.
Can you cite my words or argument that relies on a claim that the SOFA’s intent and purpose was to guarantee or assure that Iraq would not fall back into civil war after all US troops were withdrawn.
You must recall that the US government violated Iraq’s sovereignty with no legitimate purpose or justification and there was no civil war and when military aggression, killing maiming, torture and destruction was chosen by Bush as the best means to verify the disarmament of Iraq of the most lethal weapons ever devised. So instead of peacefully disarming Iraq through the UN which was making unprecedented progress at that time, Bush ordered a military assault, which led to civil war in the first place. And can you believe that there were Americans who stated shortly after the invasion that Bush was justified in starting the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Many Republicans still think it was justified.
let me guess: you were not fooled by that.
Can you cite where I claimed that about your “words or argument”?
A week later you are still right. And probably getting righter every day. The Iraqi Security Forces in Mosul pretty much dropped their guns and fled without much of a fight. Whatever the sectarian make up of those forces there may be a reason that they cowed at the thought of fighting a terrorist group that was heavily outnumbered and out-gunned.
ISIS had been doing preliminary work in Mosul at the time of the national election. According to this they were extorting millions from business owners according to this:
(militants …were believed to be extorting taxes of up to $8m a month from businesses in Mosul before its takeover)
It is more than likely that this Islamist foreign mafia paid off and threatened officers in charge of protecting Mosul’s security.
People are waking up to the reality that the so-called Sunni/Shiite Civil War II in Iraq is an Regional War where the head of the ISIS snake needs to be cut off immediately and that snake is not in Iraq I do not believe.
Saying that Mosul was taken over by ‘rebels’ does a disservice to the counter-offensive that is being waged.
I hate to have to brake the news to you, but ISIL started in Iraq.