- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WaPo op-ed calls out latest Obama lie: not his decision to pull out of Iraq.
Posted on 8/13/14 at 12:47 pm to Wolfhound45
Posted on 8/13/14 at 12:47 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
And I am actually in agreement with President Obama, we should have withdrawn when we did.
First, thanks for taking the time to offer some thoughts here.
I'm glad that you agree with President Obama's decision to completely withdraw all US military personnel from Iraq at the time of his re-election campaign. I respect your opinion.
However, that's not a unanimous opinion within the community of military planners currently on active duty with active duty forces. Indeed, many of those individuals would argue that you and President Obama are wrong on this issue. They would argue that Obama's withdrawal was pre-mature, and that some kind of stay behind force was necessary to ensure stable development of that nascent nation-state.
Which argument, at this point in time, seems to have greater merit?
IMHO, the folks who say that Obama's withdrawal was precipitous seem to be more correct here. After all, we are still fighting in Iraq, and Obama has said that we will be fighting there for the foreseeable future.
It is very saddening to everyone on our side that Iraq's stability was so fragile. The calculated risk failed. We know that Obama acted against the advice of many of his military advisers when he took this risk. He should take the blame
Instead, Obama did not take the blame. He now wants us to believe that it was not his decision to pull out of Iraq. He's responding to criticism by lying.
The point of this thread is that he is a liar.
The issue of whether Obama withdrew from Iraq in the most reasonable and wise fashion is a great topic for another thread. IMHO, current events demonstrate that he did not. There may be many who disagree with me, but, I'll bet that most active duty military planners would opine that Obama's withdrawal was precipitous and too risky.
The plan was to leave a stay-behind force on the ground for the purpose of fostering stability.
This post was edited on 8/13/14 at 12:49 pm
2
Posted on 8/13/14 at 12:58 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Years and years of an American presence would not have prevented them from going back to their tribal methodologies.
Great topic for a separate thread. I hope you start the thread.
This is an extremely important point that you raise. It is conclusory, so, during our mission there, we needed to analyze the extent to which it is an accurate conclusion.
If our military planners could reach consensus that your conclusion is accurate, then, the model of governance we set up for Iraq, we'd have to admit, would never work.
The solution to this problem would not be precipitous withdrawal, i.e. quitting the game taking our ball and going home, but, rather, setting up a new model for governance.
What I'm saying is that an extraordinarily wise POTUS would require the military planners to advise whether this (the current) model for governance could work. If the military planners/advisers opined as you do that the answer is "No", then, a new model of governance is required, perhaps a three-state solution.
Sure, the Turks would be upset with a Kurdish state, but, Turkey, IMHO, is no longer a good ally of the USA. Will Turkey leave NATO? Let them take that risk. Putin would be glad if Turkey left NATO. Russia would love to control the Dardanelles.
This post was edited on 8/13/14 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 8/13/14 at 12:59 pm to Champagne
quote:
The point of this thread is that he is a liar.
Exactly, and the fact he lies repeatedly and seems to skate with most in the media is alarming.
Some here too seem not to care as if the end justifies anything the man says.
Frontline had a great piece on Iraq, and it illustrated many of the mistakes W made. It also illustrated how detached Obama was from the situation.
It seems to me being out of touch with the situation in Iraq may have gotten him votes, but it sure isn't the sign of a good POTUS.
And it's not just Iraq. He seems to be detached from many of the problems we see in the world. The US needs to be engaged so that we can exert leadership and play a part in solving problems to our advantage.
Oh and by engaged I don't mean sending troops. I mean he(Obama) should be involved diplomatically with our allies and our enemies as best we can. And I don't just mean via a photo op.
Posted on 8/13/14 at 1:00 pm to doubleb
Thanks, doubleb, for this great post.
Very well put and this is the main point of my thread.
Very well put and this is the main point of my thread.
Posted on 8/13/14 at 1:05 pm to Champagne
quote:
Champagne
Well written. I do not disagree with any of your points. The issue (to me) is acceptable risk and how do you address it (we are resource constrained - we cannot do everything we want to do).
In my opinion, at some point we had to cut the tie that binds. Leaving US forces in Iraq was no guarantee that sectarian violence would not return. As disgusting as it seems, they (apparently) are not tired of their internal conflict. It is my experience that this is an integral part of their tribal culture/system. The powerful myth of the Middle Eastern strongman/despot. Years upon years of US presence will not undo this. Unfortunately, it will have to run its course and burn itself out (hopefully).
Again, my part in this process is small. But I am on Active Duty (thirty plus years and counting) so I have (somewhat) of an informed opinion on the matter. I have commanded at the company, battalion (twice) and now at the brigade level. I am a graduate of the US Army War College (resident program). I know decision making and acceptable risk. It is what I do as a commander and a senior leader.
In conclusion, I take no issue with President Obama taking a prudent risk and putting mitigation strategies in place to address potential issues. I actually applaud someone who is willing to take a chance. Risk/reward. But the reality is 1) This was always a campaign issue for him rather than (in my opinion) a principled stand and 2) When the situation began to deteriorate he needed to take responsibility and action (something - IMHO - he simply refuses to do). That is our undoing.
Again, well done post (as usual, you are one of the best on this board). I think we would agree in principle to the major points.
Posted on 8/13/14 at 1:06 pm to Champagne
quote:
Thanks
Thank you, I try and call it like it is, good thread.
FWIW, the media is not playing the role as the people's champion. they aren't asking the questions that people out here have, and their not holding our leaders responsible for what they say and do. As a result, we are the losers.
Posted on 8/13/14 at 1:08 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
Again, my part in this process is small. But I am on Active Duty (thirty plus years and counting) so I have (somewhat) of an informed opinion on the matter. I have commanded at the company, battalion (twice) and now at the brigade level. I am a graduate of the US Army War College (resident program). I know decision making and acceptable risk.
Yeah well, I drew a big hairy penis on Blackwater bridge during the middle of a battle. So there!
Posted on 8/13/14 at 1:11 pm to Champagne
quote:
Champagne
I agree with every part but this;
quote:
What I'm saying is that an extraordinarily wise POTUS would require the military planners to advise whether this (the current) model for governance could work. If the military planners/advisers opined as you do that the answer is "No", then, a new model of governance is required, perhaps a three-state solution.
I am leery of military leaders being involved in determining issues regarding governance. With few exceptions (Petraeus and Odierno are gifted in that regard) we simply are just not that nuanced in our thought. We don't have the experience (many reasons for this). Just being honest.
If you want something broke, we are the guys to do it. Fixing stuff? Not so much.
ETA: If you need rude drawings made on Blackwater bridge during the middle of a battle, we have someone who can handle that.
This post was edited on 8/13/14 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 8/13/14 at 1:12 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
So there!
In case of war, break glass containing GeauxxxTigers23.
Posted on 8/13/14 at 1:33 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
In case of war, break glass containing GeauxxxTigers23.
Awww Wolf, I think that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me. Sig quote excluded of course.
Posted on 8/13/14 at 1:53 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Awww Wolf, I think that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me. Sig quote excluded of course.
Bro, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if we get into it I want you on the 240 right beside me. Doing work.
ETA: Wish I could post a vid from this weekend of Wolfhound1.0 and Wolfhound2.0 firing an MP5 (rented) on burst and full auto. Wolfhound2.0 actually sounded off with "Clear" when he removed his thirty round magazine and cleared the chamber. Brought a tear to my eye.
Ended up firing three hundred rounds of 9mm. Well worth the time and money.
This post was edited on 8/13/14 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 8/13/14 at 2:00 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if we get into it I want you on the 240 right beside me. Doing work.
It'd be an honor sir!
Posted on 8/13/14 at 2:01 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
It'd be an honor sir!
Hooyah!
(hopefully I said that with the correct inflection of a Lance)
Posted on 8/13/14 at 2:30 pm to Champagne
quote:
Obama took full credit for ending the war in Iraq and bringing all military personnel home.
He bragged about this in many speeches, many times over the last few years.
For him to declare today in a speech that it was not his decision to do it is arguably insane.
Yep, it's insanity from a rational perspective but from the liberal progressive/Saul Alinsky/any means justifies the end result, it makes perfect sense. Obama and his advisers obviously see that the worm has turned in Iraq and that they are being blamed for the terrorist resurgence, thus the politically expedient move is to deflect by not taking credit from the withdrawal from Iraq.
Posted on 8/13/14 at 3:36 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
I think we would agree in principle to the major points.
Thanks for your input, and, thanks for your service.
quote:
I am leery of military leaders being involved in determining issues regarding governance. With few exceptions (Petraeus and Odierno are gifted in that regard) we simply are just not that nuanced in our thought. We don't have the experience (many reasons for this). Just being honest.
I need to clarify:
The military leaders would not make the final decision determining any issue of governance. On the other hand, an extraordinarily wise POTUS would spend many hours in conference with these leaders in order to analyze whether the war is winnable. The war would be winnable only if the country could be stabilized long-term under the current model of governance.
Let's say that the consensus from the military leaders is that these idiots are never going to stop fighting each other, if we continue on our current path. That prompts POTUS to conclude that the current model of governance is a failure.
POTUS is the guy to say:
" I've decided to go with another model of governance, because my military advisors largely agree that the country cannot be stabilized militarily under this current model.
The Three-State Solution is our last resort, but, at this point, I see no alternative. I want the military leadership to analyze and brief me on how we would militarily stabilize the region under the Three-State Solution model of governance.
My intent is to establish a region that's divided into Kurdish, Sunni and Shia autonomous territories, such that each of these three groups of idiots will defend their own territories from invasion. Once we help complete democratic elections in each region, we can militarily stablize with a view towards withdrawal.
End state is to establish stable democratically elected governments for each of the three regions and begin analysis of when and how to withdraw.
Too bad that Iraq will no longer exist, but, we cannot stay there forever, and, we cannot just take our ball and go home once the game goes against us, so, we need to go to this last resort plan. "
This post was edited on 8/13/14 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 8/13/14 at 3:44 pm to Champagne
quote:Who remembers the hell Bush took from the media/Left because of his banner "Mission Accomplished" on that ship? If he was accountable for that, then should it not follow that Obama is accountable for his own misleading actions and words?
Obama took full credit for ending the war in Iraq and bringing all military personnel home.
He bragged about this in many speeches, many times over the last few years.
Posted on 8/13/14 at 3:58 pm to JawjaTigah
OOOOoooooooooooooooo !!
Good point, Jawja Tiger !
Good point, Jawja Tiger !
Posted on 8/13/14 at 6:57 pm to Champagne
quote:
Champagne
Again, well done good sir.
But, just like social issues in this country, what if the desire of certain factions is not peace? They actually want to see unrest?
That is our challenge. A three state solution is actually the best way to go (as you are well aware). And yet there are groups that would be driven from power if the fighting stopped and they actually had to peacefully administer their territory (roads, police, water, power, garbage disposal, et al).
So....
Posted on 8/13/14 at 8:43 pm to Wolfhound45
Once the three state solution is implemented leaving three stable nation-states we withdraw.
If these three groups of idiots start fighting themselves again at some future point after we have left, we stay out of it.
Each of the three states, Shia, Sunni and Kurd, will have strong individual motives to fight for their own homeland, because each of those "tribes" will own everything within the borders of their own independent nation-states.
If ISIL drives into one or all of the three, they will have a fight on their hands.
If these three groups of idiots start fighting themselves again at some future point after we have left, we stay out of it.
Each of the three states, Shia, Sunni and Kurd, will have strong individual motives to fight for their own homeland, because each of those "tribes" will own everything within the borders of their own independent nation-states.
If ISIL drives into one or all of the three, they will have a fight on their hands.
This post was edited on 8/13/14 at 8:46 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News