Obama is getting criticized for the situation in Iraq from several quarters. Not interested in what the US should or could do in the present situation. Some criticism is about “Obama withdrew American troops from Iraq, now see what is happening” or words to that effect.
This puzzles me. I distinctly remember Obama agreeing to leave a significant training and advising force in Iraq, possibly including combat forces, assuming Iraq would sign a status of forces agreement. Iraq did not sign and the Americans left. The administration worked to obtain the agreement with Iraq. I can’t imagine a single American being willing to leave American soldiers in Iraq and subject them to Iraqi laws and Iraqi jurisdiction. Yet no one is mentioning this during the criticisms. They sound like they believe American troops left Iraq just because Obama wanted them to.
Is my memory faulty? Was there ever a way for American forces to stay in Iraq-assuming that the Iraqi government wouldn’t sign a status of forces agreement?
You left out the part where Bush was the one negotiating the status of forces agreement. All Obama did was implement the agreement that Bush signed, which said we would leave.
Sort of, but I guess it depends on your definition of “forces.” If thousands and thousands of “diplomats” and private contractors largely housed on a humungous embassy count, then the answer is yes.
The numbers given in this article from right before the withdrawal of forces (late 2011) probably aren’t even close to current, but that’s not what you asked about, anyway.
But things didn’t go quite as planned, and a few months later there’s this from the NYT:
Yes, but he *did *try to negotiate an extension/new agreement to allow the troops operating under “Operation New Dawn” to remain in an advisory/training role.
According to anonymous “Iraqi and Western officials” cited in this New Yorker piece (Which someone linked to in another thread. Thanks, nice read!), it was the Iranian power-brokering which finally allowed Iraq to successfully form a government that had “No more U.S. troops” as a precondition. :smack:
Thanks.
I knew there was a huge “diplomatic” presence planned, I didn’t realize it was that big! Of course as you point out it didn’t happen because the Iraqi’s didn’t want it. Fine.
My major question remains: Why is Obama being criticized for choosing to leave Iraq when he left because the Iraqi government refused to let the US stay/wouldn’t interact with the US folks who were there? He didn’t have a choice in the matter as far as I know. Is that correct?
It’s all political theatre intended to stir up anger, however irrational, towards Obama and Democrats in general. The Democrats did the exact same thing to Bush. And so on and so on all the way back to the first time cavemen had a disagreement over who should be Chief. It never changes, and as long as voters can be swayed by irrational or unfounded arguments, it never will.
The Americans left because… why would they stay? Diplomatic back-and-forth aside, they weren’t going to accomplish much more. The opposition forces had been reduced to urban terrorism. That’s something best dealt with by locals. If you can’t speak the language, don’t understand the nuances of the society - all you do is provide convenient targets for the opposition.
The Shiite government should be grateful they were “liberated”. However, they could not appease their own base and also grant Blackwater (or the US Army) immunity for whatever it did. So - no agreement.
All this was in place pretty much before Obama took office, but these details don’t seem to matter in what passes for political debate in the USA. Heck, when he killed bin Laden and the same people who were clamoring for OBL’s death now accused Obama of grandstanding. The same people that were in charge when the economy tanked blamed the current administration for the poor economy. Do you want logic or American political debate?
The Americans had guns, tanks and drones. If they wanted to stay in Iraq, they could have. However, the whole idea was to get in, get Saddam, get democracy going, get out. 3 out of 4 ain’t bad, unless the one you missed is “don’t leave a terrorist haven behind”. The idea from the start was to get a local government established and pull out as fast as possible.
I think the military establishment has finally learned the hard way, 13 years and 2 countries later, that all the drones and bombs in the world can’t solve some problems. Why try?
Despite what the news says, the problem is not some minor fanatic terrorist group - the problem is that the Iraqi Shiite government has marginalized and oppressed the Sunnis from Saddam’s areas instead of including them in government, aggravating an ages-old ethnic divide. As a result, the Sunnis are now egging on and encouraging these terrorists, and giving them plenty of support. The Iraqi government is now set to learn what the US spent over a decade learning - if you stir up a snake, don’t be surprised if it bites you in the ass.
I think the answer is fairly uncomplicated once you factor it down all the way to its simple root.
Those on the left side of the political spectrum in the US now have power of the executive branch of government. The executive branch makes the decisions of when and where we go to extend the power and influence of the US. They basically do not like the USA as a global power and seek to diminish our footstep for that reason.
However, as we will find out soon enough, nature abhors a vacuum and bad actors will fill the power vacuum, and appeasement does not work.
Well, but the current administration attempted to negotiate to modify the 2008 agreement to maintain a US troop presence in Iraq past 2011. Ultimately, those negotiations broke off because the Iraqis would not agree to immunity for US personnel from Iraqi courts.
I think the answer is fairly uncomplicated once you factor it down all the way to its simple root.
Those on the left side of the political spectrum in the US now have power of the executive branch of government. The executive branch makes the decisions of when and where we go to extend the power and influence of the US. They basically do not like compromising the security interests of the USA as a global power and seek to diminish our actions that harm the USA for that reason.
However, as we will find out soon enough, the right abhors sane foreign policy and war criminals will fill the presidency, and appeasement of the right does not work.
I doubt you would find many people, outside of the military and the arms industry, over on this side of the Atlantic that wanted British troops to stay a minute longer than they had to.
Topics like this usually end up involving opinion and debate, and this one is no exception. There seems to be enough debate here that GD seems like a better choice than IMHO.
Moving thread from General Questions to Great Debates.
This. It really doesn’t matter if what Obama is doing is a good idea or bad idea; the Republicans will bash him for it even if they were saying the same exact thing the day before. Obama’s policy towards Iraq could be genius or insanity and they’d talk about it exactly the same.
Ironically, this shields Obama from valid criticism from the Republicans, since it gets lost in the endless stream of irrational hostility.
:dubious: Are you under the impression that Obama is a left winger? He’s a right winger, barely to the left of Bush II; liberals generally despise him. He’s just smarter and saner than Bush, not significantly more left wing.
For what it’s worth I do think Obama took over and slightly changed his view on Iraq. He saw that we had some moral responsibility and he was willing to keep us up with some minimal involvement there through a bilateral security agreement (similar to the one we are trying to get finalized in Afghanistan.) Iraq turned it down primarily because their government is/was close to Iran and wanted to build popularity by thumbing their nose at America.
The thing about a formal BSA is while our involvement on paper would have been minimal it would have involved a formalized relationship which means it probably/could have easily escalated (and probably periodically would as violence flared up) and deescalated somewhat fluidly so even though it would have been a minimal involvement it would have been a more serious commitment than that small number of troops might reflect (because it would have been a commitment to Iraq’s security.)
I think one has to ask “If we’d stayed in Iraq for another ten years, would things have turned out any better?” If not, it’s not exactly fair to criticize Obama for our getting out when we did. I always felt the rationale for leaving Iraq was less “mission accomplished” and more “how many more lives and dollars should we lose trying to forestall the inevitable?”
How can he? Afghanistan is a NATO operation and Iraq never was. The US has NATO commitments to keep. An attack on one is an attack on all. Our allies came to our aid when we were attacked on 9/11.
They didnt do that with our unjustifiable invasion of Iraq becsuse it had nothing to do with 9/11 and never did and never will.