off topic The politics of terrorism

[Taro T]

It's well thought out. But inaccurate. GW Bush signed the status of forces agreement agreeing to withdraw all US troops by the end of 2011.

 

If it is an enemy combatant, sure.

And that is misleading. Everybody knew in 2008 that the status of forces agreement was to be renewed before it expired in 2011. The President in 2011 wanted our troops out and got what he wanted.

[darksabre]

And that is misleading. Everybody knew in 2008 that the status of forces agreement was to be renewed before it expired in 2011. The President in 2011 wanted our troops out and got what he wanted.

The American people wanted the troops out, no?

[deluca67]

And that is misleading. Everybody knew in 2008 that the status of forces agreement was to be renewed before it expired in 2011. The President in 2011 wanted our troops out and got what he wanted.

Spending trillions more and sacrificing more Americans lives was/is not the answer. 

 

You don't fight ideology with tanks and bombs. The problem in the Middle East has been and will always be that there is a small group  who are high jacking a religion to overtake and control a region. They force young men into their ranks telling them how evil the West is, showing the path of destruction of two Gulf wars and Israeli military strikes. These young men have know idea there is a better life out there. Those that do, flee the region. It's important to show these young men that there is a better life out there for them and that they are not hated simply due to their skin color and religion.       

[Taro T]

The American people wanted the troops out, no?

Leadership is doing what is necessary whether it is popular or not. Drawing down troops (and not to the level the President proposed which was a non-starter w/ the Iraqis) was working towards that goal of being out of Iraq. And that was a readily available option. Just flat out walking out the way we did was a horribly poor decision which will cost us significantly more in lives and $'s than leaving a reasonable but reduced presence. Declaring we've won and walking away before ensuring the gains were secured is an awful legacy.

 

The President also came to office claiming he'd shut down Club Gitmo and that was 'what the American people wanted' as well. Club Gitmo is still active and operating. Our presence in Iraq should have been there still as well.

Spending trillions more and sacrificing more Americans lives was/is not the answer. 

 

You don't fight ideology with tanks and bombs. The problem in the Middle East has been and will always be that there is a small group  who are high jacking a religion to overtake and control a region. They force young men into their ranks telling them how evil the West is, showing the path of destruction of two Gulf wars and Israeli military strikes. These young men have know idea there is a better life out there. Those that do, flee the region. It's important to show these young men that there is a better life out there for them and that they are not hated simply due to their skin color and religion.

 

You didn't read my earlier post; if you did you wouldn't post this strawman.

 

I will not respond to this.

[darksabre]

Leadership is doing what is necessary whether it is popular or not. Drawing down troops (and not to the level the President proposed which was a non-starter w/ the Iraqis) was working towards that goal of being out of Iraq. And that was a readily available option. Just flat out walking out the way we did was a horribly poor decision which will cost us significantly more in lives and $'s than leaving a reasonable but reduced presence. Declaring we've won and walking away before ensuring the gains were secured is an awful legacy.

 

The President also came to office claiming he'd shut down Club Gitmo and that was 'what the American people wanted' as well. Club Gitmo is still active and operating. Our presence in Iraq should have been there still as well.

 

Here's the thing. The American people were sold a false bill when Bush took us into Iraq. I think if they'd been honest and said "We want to go into Iraq and stay there for 25-50-75 years. We're going to do our job as Americans...blah blah blah..." then Obama doesn't run and win on pulling the troops out of a totally messed up campaign with no timeframe.

 

If we're going to have ourselves some wars, we need to be sold a plan that includes realistic time frames, objectives, etc. Is that so much to ask?

Edited November 15, 2015 by d4rksabre

[bob_sauve28]

The American people wanted the troops out, no?

And all the Iraqi political parties wanted us gone, also. Democracy? 

[bunomatic]

Helping the young people of the middle east by showing them there is a better life and assimilating them is all fine and good but what do you do with the ones already among us ? The ones that have grown up here and are still disenfranchised, marginalized, and in many cases ripe to be recruited or in some cases already have been recruited by the radical imams ? I've watched video out of England where gangs of radicalized worshippers control whole areas of London with strongarm tactics and worse. God forbid you be white and accidently go into these areas. I believe in helping these legitimate refugees like we always have with the Irish, the Scots, the Vietnamese, too many cultures to list really but many of them never actually assimilate. I've used taxi in Vancouver where the driver can't speak english. I know 2nd generation immigrants whose parents still can't speak english. That isn't assimilation. One of the terrorists in Paris is said to be a French national. Born and raised. How did things get so bad for this cat ? Part of the problem is parents who indoctrinate their children and teach their child to never question why when it comes to the faith. From what I've seen that goes for most faiths.

Edited November 15, 2015 by bunomatic

[LastPommerFan]

I'm racking my brain trying to think of new solutions to this problem (on the assumption that all previous solutions have failed, your mileage may very) and I keep coming back to the idea of putting together an honest ME Marshall Plan (Marshall plan would have been $130B in today Dollars, I propose that ME has further to go than post war Europe, so $300B).

 

These regions desperately need liberalism. Liberalism is a direct result of education, economics, and art. It is never a result of war, but war may be necessary to implement the things that do drive liberalism. I would support a US contingent to an international effort only AFTER funds were escrowed to deliver the goods.

 

(I am using liberalism in the sense opposed to feudalism, monarchy, and theocracy, not modern American Liberalism, which is not completely congruent with the former.)

 

Total Foreign Aid Spending the last several years has been around $25B, so we're not messing around here.

[Eleven]

And that is misleading. Everybody knew in 2008 that the status of forces agreement was to be renewed before it expired in 2011. The President in 2011 wanted our troops out and got what he wanted.

 

No, no, no.

[darksabre]

I'm racking my brain trying to think of new solutions to this problem (on the assumption that all previous solutions have failed, your mileage may very) and I keep coming back to the idea of putting together an honest ME Marshall Plan (Marshall plan would have been $130B in today Dollars, I propose that ME has further to go than post war Europe, so $300B).

 

These regions desperately need liberalism. Liberalism is a direct result of education, economics, and art. It is never a result of war, but war may be necessary to implement the things that do drive liberalism. I would support a US contingent to an international effort only AFTER funds were escrowed to deliver the goods.

 

(I am using liberalism in the sense opposed to feudalism, monarchy, and theocracy, not modern American Liberalism, which is not completely congruent with the former.)

 

Total Foreign Aid Spending the last several years has been around $25B, so we're not messing around here.

A new Ottoman empire, essentially.

[BagBoy]

And all the Iraqi political parties wanted us gone, also. Democracy?

Thank you! Many of the Obama haters seem to forget we were told to leave by a sovereign nation.

[deluca67]

Leadership is doing what is necessary whether it is popular or not. Drawing down troops (and not to the level the President proposed which was a non-starter w/ the Iraqis) was working towards that goal of being out of Iraq. And that was a readily available option. Just flat out walking out the way we did was a horribly poor decision which will cost us significantly more in lives and $'s than leaving a reasonable but reduced presence. Declaring we've won and walking away before ensuring the gains were secured is an awful legacy.

 

The President also came to office claiming he'd shut down Club Gitmo and that was 'what the American people wanted' as well. Club Gitmo is still active and operating. Our presence in Iraq should have been there still as well.

 

You didn't read my earlier post; if you did you wouldn't post this strawman.

 

I will not respond to this.

No straw involved at all. 

 

It's a fools dream that Iraq or any Middle Eastern state will become like the US or Canada without first dealing with the root problems. Keeping Iraq as a US patrolled police state is not how you make real change. Change has to come from within, not a threat of a US tank.  

[Eleven]

No straw involved at all. 

 

It's a fools dream that Iraq or any Middle Eastern state will become like the US or Canada without first dealing with the root problems. Keeping Iraq as a US patrolled police state is not how you make real change. Change has to come from within, not a threat of a US tank.  

 

No more tank talk.

[deluca67]

No more tank talk.

Isn't tanking the only way to improve?  :rolleyes:

[LastPommerFan]

A new Ottoman empire, essentially.

 

essentially, but I don't think the region needs to be politically unified, Europe certainly wasn't during their enlightenment.

[darksabre]

essentially, but I don't think the region needs to be politically unified, Europe certainly wasn't during their enlightenment.

And the Ottoman empire was based on religious rule so I wouldn't want that distinction either. But really what you need is occupation. Long term occupation. You can't let ME countries be theocracies.

[K-9]

I'm racking my brain trying to think of new solutions to this problem (on the assumption that all previous solutions have failed, your mileage may very) and I keep coming back to the idea of putting together an honest ME Marshall Plan (Marshall plan would have been $130B in today Dollars, I propose that ME has further to go than post war Europe, so $300B).

 

These regions desperately need liberalism. Liberalism is a direct result of education, economics, and art. It is never a result of war, but war may be necessary to implement the things that do drive liberalism. I would support a US contingent to an international effort only AFTER funds were escrowed to deliver the goods.

 

(I am using liberalism in the sense opposed to feudalism, monarchy, and theocracy, not modern American Liberalism, which is not completely congruent with the former.)

 

Total Foreign Aid Spending the last several years has been around $25B, so we're not messing around here.

Who is on the ground administrating this plan and what is the personnel ratio relative to the population?

 

The Middle East isn't just one giant problem area. It is a giant problem area with a myriad of problems across a huge geographical area with a countless number of antagonists, bad actors, and corrupt politics.

 

We would need to implement a Marshall Plan on an exponential scale compared to post WW2.

[PASabreFan]

We've all heard it a million times and it often sounds too simplistic, but would we care at all what's going on over there if not for the oil? If that's not right, what else has motivated our involvement in the Middle East since the end of World War II, if not earlier? It's not a Crusade, although W. once misspoke to that effect. And if it is the oil, what better argument is there to finally achieve energy independence?

[Eleven]

We've all heard it a million times and it often sounds too simplistic, but would we care at all what's going on over there if not for the oil? If that's not right, what else has motivated our involvement in the Middle East since the end of World War II, if not earlier? It's not a Crusade, although W. once misspoke to that effect. And if it is the oil, what better argument is there to finally achieve energy independence?

 

Israel.

[Taro T]

Here's the thing. The American people were sold a false bill when Bush took us into Iraq. I think if they'd been honest and said "We want to go into Iraq and stay there for 25-50-75 years. We're going to do our job as Americans...blah blah blah..." then Obama doesn't run and win on pulling the troops out of a totally messed up campaign with no timeframe.

If we're going to have ourselves some wars, we need to be sold a plan that includes realistic time frames, objectives, etc. Is that so much to ask?

A few things: 1. Donald Rumsfeld should have been an Undersecretary of Defense charged with modernizing our forces. That was a role he was good at. He should never have been the Secretary of Defense. He underestimated the situation from day 1 and was still opposing the surge when he left office. The US was not going to be universally greeted w/ cheers and roses, which he expected and the surge should have happened much sooner.

 

2. It seems that you are conflating the fighting w/ the 'nation building' for lack of a better phrase. We are still in Germany 70 years later even though the fighting AND the nation building have been over for decades. The fighting was, for the most part, over and the nation building was underway. Conditions were significantly improving at the time we walked away. Simply put, we should not have walked away when we did.

 

3. Including time frames among the goals is IMHO a recipe for failure. IF one goes to war, the goal needs to be to WIN. If timeframes (for achieving victory or stating we will be completely out) are established beforehand, the enemy knows they can wait us out and defeat is almost assured. Again, IMHO. Schedules need to be amenable to realities on the ground.

 

I'd agree that the case for invasion could have and should have been made better. And whatever role the US takes moving forward, I'd hope that it is both clear what our goals are and that we have a productive strategy.

[JJFIVEOH]

We've all heard it a million times and it often sounds too simplistic, but would we care at all what's going on over there if not for the oil? If that's not right, what else has motivated our involvement in the Middle East since the end of World War II, if not earlier? It's not a Crusade, although W. once misspoke to that effect. And if it is the oil, what better argument is there to finally achieve energy independence?

 

It's the military-industrial complex at work, the government making the rich richer at our expense. The Middle East is just easy pickins' and oil sounds like a great excuse.

[K-9]

We've all heard it a million times and it often sounds too simplistic, but would we care at all what's going on over there if not for the oil? If that's not right, what else has motivated our involvement in the Middle East since the end of World War II, if not earlier? It's not a Crusade, although W. once misspoke to that effect. And if it is the oil, what better argument is there to finally achieve energy independence?

Oil has driven ME policy of the US, UK, Russia, France and Europe for over a hundred years and has fomented many of the anti-West movements in the region since BP first discovered major oil in what is now Iran in the early part of the last century. I urge everyone to read Daniel Yergin's 'The Prize', considered one of the best books ever written on the subject of oil.

Edited November 15, 2015 by K-9

[X. Benedict]

And that is misleading. Everybody knew in 2008 that the status of forces agreement was to be renewed before it expired in 2011. The President in 2011 wanted our troops out and got what he wanted.

 

There was no way the Iraqi parliament was going to approve an extension even if Obama had wanted to. 

 

Anyway....since it has come up. Politifact was dealing with the question in MAY

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/18/jeb-bush/obama-refused-sign-plan-place-leave-10000-troops-i/

 

 

Anyway.....part of SOFA negotiated by Bush was this:

 

Article 24 Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached: 1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011. 2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009. 3. United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in paragraph 2 above. | 16 4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time. The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time. 5. The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United States Forces will be present.

 

 

There was no way an extension was going to be approved by the Iraqi Government. Al Maliki asked for the Obama administration, what even Obama wouldn't give,  to extend the agreement: Criminal jurisdiction over US forces to get an agreement through the Iraqi parliament. It was a non-starter (Al Maliki knew that). There was no political will from the  Iraqi's for US troops to stay -  no partner, no agreement. 

Edited November 15, 2015 by X. Benedict

[nfreeman]

We've all heard it a million times and it often sounds too simplistic, but would we care at all what's going on over there if not for the oil? If that's not right, what else has motivated our involvement in the Middle East since the end of World War II, if not earlier? It's not a Crusade, although W. once misspoke to that effect. And if it is the oil, what better argument is there to finally achieve energy independence?

Well, we freaking need to care because they want to kill us in large numbers, and the bozo in the White House has just handed them the keys to the nuclear Cadillac.

[Neo]

The US is interested in the Middle East because oil sits under the sand. I am surprised when Americans debate this, when Americans have "ah ha" and "gotcha" moments around this, and when Americans point to it as some evil or behind the scene hidden motive.

The sun rises in the east. The earth orbits the sun. The US is interested in the Middle East because of oil, our craving for it as citizens, and our economic system where people that provide what we crave profit.

Nothing, I hope, controversial to this point.

Now, one of my favorite self examination exercises. If I've purchased a gallon of gasoline, I've done my small part in sending the colossus that is the US into the Middle East. You and I are Washington, Exxon, and Halliburton. Together we are one vote, one purchasing decision, at a time.

Edited November 15, 2015 by N'eo