The administration that Dick Cheney as a part of left Iraq in such a stable situation that Vice President Biden tried to take credit for it in 2011 on behalf of President Obama. President Obama himself declared victory in Iraq in 2011 as he withdrew all US Troops. -I think that the administration that left a stable and democratic Iraq has more credibility than the administration that has allowed Iraq to deteriorate into its present situation.
Our troops left because they were not supported by a Status of Forces agreement, worked out between Iraq and the U.S. Without such an agreement (almost universal in all countries where we have troops) our troops would have been subject to Iraqi laws should they be involved in a legal matter.
The left looks back now with their superior intellect and remembers all that Bush did wrong to cause ISIS to appear now.
If they knew so well how wrong Bush was, why didn’t they do something to head ISIS off over the past 5-6 years? And why was Obama so ill-prepared, thinking we just had a JV team?
U.S. Troops are stationed in over 50 countries worldwide and Status of Forces Agreements apply in all cases. Without such an agreement, the United States refuses countries U.S. protection in the form of resident troops.
I assume that is because of the terrible complexity of protecting them under a plethora of foreign legal systems.
The other obvious reason is because the legal systems of some governments are abhorrent to legal rights assured by U.S. soldiers under the protective flag of the United States. Some foreign governments undoubtedly find the rights, priviledges and protections of U.S. law abhorrent and would not station troops here. Occupation troops would be out of the question, of course.
If the U.S. had a truly independent, corporate ownership-free press, it is possible that we would not have to read the bile-filled tripe of Cheney and Palin ever again!
“From that, I would conclude that the US was making an a real effort to extend SOFA, and felt it to be possible at the time Biden made his incorrect assessment.
It was the Iraqis who were declining to make an acceptable deal, not the US. "-People paying attention to negotiations at the time recognized that there were ways that the Obama Administration could have obtained immunity for US Soldiers at less political cost to the Iraqi government:- As recently as August, Maliki’s office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.
Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.
“An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. -http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/21/how_the_obama_administration_bungled_the_iraq_withdrawal_negotiations- This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.
Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December. -www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/united-states-and-iraq-had-not-expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html
“None of what you quote changes what I posted.”-It directly refutes your central claim. While the President’s supporters would very much like him to be blameless for the withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq (notwithstanding the fact that he took credit for the withdrawal at the time) the facts indicate that a deal with Iraq was possible, but the President either was uninterested in pursuing it or was too inept to successfully do so. Notwithstanding popular dissatisfaction with foreign troop occupation there was a strong desire in the Iraqi government to retain a troop presence. By demanding a formal act of parliament to confer immunity rather than use some less-visible alternative that might have saved Iraqi face the President more or less spiked negotiations. With the American President apparently unwilling to maintain American soldiers in Iraq, what incentive would the Iraqi government have to lose face and betray weakness by uselessly begging for their return?-I will admit that the Iraqi government should have done more to ensure that negotiations would succeed. But the President had the ability to find a way to retain soldiers in Iraq while saving Iraqi face, including, yes, what might have been an unusual use of diplomatic immunity. The record shows that he made no effort to do so, and we now see the consequences of his diplomacy.-For those who are interested in the topic and have come across this discussion, here are two more relevant links for consideration:-www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/why-obama-owns-iraq.php-http://sweetness-light.com/archive/did-obama-negotiate-with-iraq-over-troops
In light of some of the atrocities committed against Iraqis where soldiers or contractors mercenaries were not prosecuted by the US occupational authorities or US military for blatant misconduct, including murders; or, if they were court-martialed, let off with a slap on the wrist, then Iraq would have not have demanded that US troops be liable under Iraqi laws for their…atrocities.
…but you wanna do what you like with impunity…shrug
“You mean like an executive order? That sort of thing which conservatives hate Obama doing?”-Criticism of President Obama’s executive overreaches focuses on his use of executive power in areas that properly fall within the responsibility of the Legislature, such as by administrative actions that are not supported by Federal Law. Foreign policy, however, is primarily an executive responsibility, and the President has a great deal of discretion in dealing with foreign powers. I am sure that the Senate would have ratified any arrangement he was able to reach with the Iraqi government, if ratification were necessary.-“No. Maliki gets the blame for the revolt of the Sunnis. Maliki was elected by the Iraqis.”-The articles I linked to noted that the Bush Administration was able to exert a moderating influence on Maliki while US troops were in the country. After our withdrawal he began to govern in a more sectarian fashion; in his defense, without US support and with a still-developing Iraqi army he may have felt the need to shore up a power base.-“And we are supposed to believe that a “few thousand” (at most) troops left for training purposes would keep the peace and Maliki in line? Lots of wishful thinking in all that.”-The articles I linked to discussed retaining a force of 8,000 to 20,000 soldiers. A force of that size, together with the infrastructure to rapidly support additional deployment at need, would have been very useful against ISIS when it invaded Iraq. It would also have given the US a potential moderating influence over the Maliki government, although I will concede that President Obama was uninterested in dealing with Iraq and would probably have given the country’s developing democracy little attention nor support.-“And that unusual use of diplomatic immunity was stupid because …”-Contrary to your statements, diplomatic immunity is used to cover soldiers in foreign countries. Furthermore, the soldiers we recently sent to Iraq are covered by the sort of diplomatic arrangement that President Obama refused to accept back in 2011:- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/world/middleeast/us-advisory-troops-get-immunity-from-iraqi-law.html-The diplomatic option was just one of several possible options available to the American and Iraqi governments as they looked for a way to maintain a US presence while saving Iraqi face. By insisting on the most stringent and difficult option the President essentially cut off these possibilities.-Legal evidence may not be like scientific evidence, but when we are in the realm of politics it is the best measure of fact. And with the evidence available to us I have no doubt that President Bush would have negotiated an extension to the SOFA with Iraq. Even if that failed he would have remained engaged with the country and its government; faced with a year’s advanced notice of the threat posed by ISIS (as the Obama administration received) President Bush would have heeded the Iraq government’s calls for help. And yes, the left would be calling him an imperialist for it.
President Bush was able to predict the consequences to Iraq if American soldiers were removed too hastily:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-george-w-bush-was-right-about-iraq-pullout/2014/09/08/6ddd91b2-374e-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html-As for the proper discipline for examining political events I partially accept your point, for my language was inexact. I meant to emphasize that it would be foolish to rely on “scientific evidence,” as opposed to the sort of evidence accepted at law or in history, in evaluating political news.
“But in 2011, American military lawyers deemed such assurances insufficient and insisted troops stay only if legal immunity was approved by the Iraqi Parliament.
So Obama agrees with the military assessment and he’s wrong. Got it."-Well well! A short while ago you criticized lawyers for putting their opinions above the level of facts, but now that you have found some attorneys who agree with you their opinions are authoritative! Of course legal opinions do not trump facts, especially when (as is the case here) they are offered on behalf of a client who is looking for legal justification for his preferred course of action. American troops abroad generally operate pursuant to agreements with local governments and do not require parliamentary action to support their presence. In addition, the President’s lawyer’s opinion was evidently not so strong as to prevent the President from sending American troops into Iraq without parliamentary cover in 2014:-http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/06/25/iraq-and-the-immunity-dodge/-“The NYT articles indicates that the final number of troops agreed upon was 5000 which agrees with what I said.”-You said “a few thousand at most.” And the Times article only mentions that the figure of 5,000 was “discussed.” Other articles I linked indicate that US and Iraqi military sources preferred a larger force. Again, there is no evidence that the Obama Administration made any effort to push this issue. Even a small force could have done some good, however, by stiffening the Iraqi army, by providing a basis for influence to the Iraqi political structure; and by maintaining infrastructure for additional deployment if and when desired.-“It was Maliki who would be using an executive order to offer immunity. Like Obama, he would have drawn substantial criticism for the use of same to get around his legislative branch.”-Iraq’s Constitution differs from that of the United States, and I do not know the full extent of Maliki’s powers. However, sources involved in negotiations agree that there were options available to Maliki and the Obama Administration short of formal Parliamentary approval. Again, one of the reasons we know this is true is that we have not sought or obtained legal immunity from parliament for the soldiers we have sent to Iraq this year. -“The facts are that prior to signing the 2008 SOFA, Bush was not able negotiate a good deal.”-President Bush agreed to the 2008 SOFA after President Obama’s election. The terms of the withdrawal followed President Obama’s declared timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Had John McCain been elected President Bush might well have sought a different outcome, but he chose to leave President Obama with terms that the new President claimed to like, while at the same time leaving Mr. Obama the flexibility to negotiate an extension had he wished to do so.-In response to your speculation I can tell you how a different President would have secured an extension for a continued American troop presence: by giving Iraqi officials political cover to move to establish troop immunity. This could be done in a number of ways. Instead, it became clear to the Iraqi government that President Obama wasn’t much interested in maintaining any American presence in Iraq. Under those conditions, why should anyone stick out their neck?-In response to your stinger, I would not have to imagine Palin involved in negotiations because she would have the good sense not to stick her foot in. Palin’s treatment of John McCain demonstrates that she has loyalty and discretion, and I would trade her for Biden as Vice President in a heartbeat.
If you read the links that I have provided you will find evidence that alternatives were possible. You will also find that people accurately predicted what would happen if we took the course that the President ultimately chose.-This is an important issue, all the more so because the President’s defenders seek to insulate him from responsibility for prematurely withdrawing US forces from Iraq (a step which he took credit for in 2011!) by arguing that there was nothing different that he could have done. The record shows that he could have acted differently, had he wished. It also shows that the way he actually acted was consistent with his stated wishes, both before and after the withdrawal, all the way up to the point that his decision began to appear to be a political liability for him.
You are correct in supposing that I do not understand your problem with my showing evidence that the President’s negotiations with the Iraqi government could have ended differently. You seem to think that outcomes of actions are wholly unpredictable and that no one should be held responsible for making one choice over another. By the standard you propose no driver could ever be culpable for an accident – after all, isn’t any analysis into her actions a futile exercise in “could have/would have?” -You suggest that my criticism of the President’s policy is merely a matter of focusing on those who predicted disaster before the fact and were lucky(?) enough to be right. But this is not a case of the President going to a roulette wheel and placing his bet on “red” only for the ball to end up on “black.” Negotiations with the Iraqi government was an event over which the President had a great deal of control. The links I provided show that the President unnecessarily decreased the chances that negotiations would succeed. They also show that the President’s words and actions suggested that he did not, in fact, want negotiations to succeed. It therefore appears that the outcome was one that the President actually wanted, or at least considered acceptable. His subsequent lack of engagement with Iraq and his failure to respond to Iraq’s requests for help further suggest that this was simply not a priority for him. The outcomes we have seen are driven more by decisions than by bad luck. -The book you cite sounds interesting and I may take a look at it. On the topic of book recommendations I would suggest Churchill’s Second World War – which contains many examples of predictable catastrophes and of poor foreign policy decisions.--Baslim:“The first paragraph goes beyond saying that 5000 was "discussed.’ It was chosen.”-You are correct. I had overlooked that passage. The much lower figure of 5,000 (which you dismissed as being insufficient to do anything useful in Iraq) was chosen … by President Obama.-“But with the agreement being submitted weeks before US elections, there would be no reason for the agreement to have been tailored as you suggest.”-Bush didn’t actually authorize his ambassador to sign the agreement until after the Presidential elections were settled. Which is, notably also when the Iraqi cabinet approved the deal and Congress was briefed, according to your source. In other words, the agreement was not finalized until after the election.
“However, when I see something like I did on your site, I consider that evidence of poor understanding of science, data and the scientific method.”-If you saw evidence of poor understanding of science, data, and the scientific method, you should have offered that evidence to refute my source and its claims. But instead of relying on facts to make your argument you simply assert your opinion that the site is bad and that lawyers are generally bad at understanding scientific matters. In other words, you seem to be making the very kind of argument that you criticize. -“First, I said, in reply to your comment, that a few thousand troops left for training purposes would not be able to keep peace or keep Maliki in line. They would be useful for training. Peacekeeping? Not so much.”-Here is what you said:- And we are supposed to believe that a “few thousand” (at most) troops left for training purposes would keep the peace and Maliki in line? Lots of wishful thinking in all that.
Why should the POTUS leave sitting ducks for extremists to knock off? What would be the gain there?
-
I wanted to say in reply that the low number of troops was a choice made by President Obama, not forced upon him by the situation, but I could not remember whether this was the case so I only pointed out that there was room in negotiations for a larger force, had the President wished to press the issue. But, as you subsequently pointed out, the 5,000 figure was in fact the President’s decision. In other words, the President who would only commit to placing in Iraq such a small number of troops as you claim would be insufficient to do any good in Iraq, and whose presence would only result in demoralizing deaths. The article you link admits that one criticism of the President is that by making such a low troop commitment he gave the Iraqi government little incentive to risk their political necks to agree to an time extension – and very significantly fails to address this criticism with anything more than handwaving. -Now, I have explained why I think that even 5,000 troops would have provided a positive influence on the Iraqi government and bolstered Iraq’s defensive abilities and stability. You have not addressed my arguments and I do not consider it useful to revisit the topic now. But it is important to note that the troop presence you distained as not worth the effort was not selected by military advisors, nor imposed by the Iraqi government, but chosen by President Obama. If the Iraqi government shared your view that this troop level offered little benefit for the political price of extending the SOFA it only bolsters my case against the President’s conduct of negotiations.-“I have found a piece which indicates that Bush did in fact tailor the SOFA to agree with Obama’s views.”-Here, as above, you attack me for stating facts that you later acknowledge to be true. In addition, the article you cite notes that President Bush could well have negotiated harder for terms he preferred. His decision not to do so needlessly (given the stated views of the President-elect) probably benefitted long-term relations with Iraq and improved the chances of his successor later negotiating a further extension when he cared to try. Unfortunately it appears that President Obama did not care and did not really try.--Martens: It seems that we are talking past each other. You have not addressed any of the points I made in my response to your previous comment. And the conclusion that your comment invites (that humans cannot anticipate the effects of real-world events) is so ridiculous I can only imagine that the point you are trying to make is much more limited than your language suggests. If so, my response to your point would likely be that this situation does not fall within the category that you are attempting to define.
“The basic fact is, that in extremely complex situations in which we can have at best only a partial comprehension of the variables involved, the outcomes we assign are approximations at the very best.-I will try to remember your words if we ever get into another discussion regarding the claims of Global Warming alarmists. But your comment attacks a position I do not take. You claim I want surety, and declare it to be impossible. I am arguing not for surety but for probability. Your principle is more properly addressed to those who claim that it was impossible for President Obama to reach any agreement with Iraq to maintain American soldiers in their country (and also, presumably, impossible for him to subsequently assist the Iraqi government during their country’s ensuing destabilization). I can, however understand the argument: Given the evidence of his handling of negotiations this is the only situation that could shield President Obama from criticism.--Baslim: I rest upon the comments that I have previously made and leave you with the last word in our debate.
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
The administration that Dick Cheney as a part of left Iraq in such a stable situation that Vice President Biden tried to take credit for it in 2011 on behalf of President Obama. President Obama himself declared victory in Iraq in 2011 as he withdrew all US Troops. -I think that the administration that left a stable and democratic Iraq has more credibility than the administration that has allowed Iraq to deteriorate into its present situation.
Godfreydaniel over 9 years ago
Iraq was never stable and certainly not close to being “democratic” (ask all the Sunnis who were systematically shut out of things!)
davidsherman over 9 years ago
Our troops left because they were not supported by a Status of Forces agreement, worked out between Iraq and the U.S. Without such an agreement (almost universal in all countries where we have troops) our troops would have been subject to Iraqi laws should they be involved in a legal matter.
SClark55 Premium Member over 9 years ago
The left looks back now with their superior intellect and remembers all that Bush did wrong to cause ISIS to appear now.
If they knew so well how wrong Bush was, why didn’t they do something to head ISIS off over the past 5-6 years? And why was Obama so ill-prepared, thinking we just had a JV team?
davidsherman over 9 years ago
U.S. Troops are stationed in over 50 countries worldwide and Status of Forces Agreements apply in all cases. Without such an agreement, the United States refuses countries U.S. protection in the form of resident troops.
I assume that is because of the terrible complexity of protecting them under a plethora of foreign legal systems.
The other obvious reason is because the legal systems of some governments are abhorrent to legal rights assured by U.S. soldiers under the protective flag of the United States. Some foreign governments undoubtedly find the rights, priviledges and protections of U.S. law abhorrent and would not station troops here. Occupation troops would be out of the question, of course.
davidsherman over 9 years ago
See my reply to Night-Gaunt.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
Those Sunni and Baathists thrown out by Cheney/ Bremer policies ARE what caused the most radical, and crazy, of that group to form ISIL.
moosemin over 9 years ago
If the U.S. had a truly independent, corporate ownership-free press, it is possible that we would not have to read the bile-filled tripe of Cheney and Palin ever again!
SClark55 Premium Member over 9 years ago
If they could see “could see where it would go”, why didn’t they head it off, and why didn’t POTUS today figure out sooner, that ISIS/ISIL was no JV?
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
“From that, I would conclude that the US was making an a real effort to extend SOFA, and felt it to be possible at the time Biden made his incorrect assessment.
It was the Iraqis who were declining to make an acceptable deal, not the US. "-People paying attention to negotiations at the time recognized that there were ways that the Obama Administration could have obtained immunity for US Soldiers at less political cost to the Iraqi government:- As recently as August, Maliki’s office was discussing allowing 8,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops to remain until next year, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie said in an interview with The Cable. He told us that there was widespread support in Iraq for such an extension, but the Obama administration was demanding that immunity for U.S. troops be endorsed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, which was never really possible.
Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.
“An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. -http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/21/how_the_obama_administration_bungled_the_iraq_withdrawal_negotiations- This month, American officials pressed the Iraqi leadership to meet again at President Talabani’s compound to discuss the issue. This time the Americans asked them to take a stand on the question of immunity for troops, hoping to remove what had always been the most difficult hurdle. But they misread Iraqi politics and the Iraqi public. Still burdened by the traumas of this and previous wars, and having watched the revolutions sweeping their region, the Iraqis were unwilling to accept anything that infringed on their sovereignty.
Acutely aware of that sentiment, the Iraqi leadership quickly said publicly that they would not support legal protections for any American troops. Some American officials have privately said that pushing for that meeting — in essence forcing the Iraqis to take a public stand on such a controversial matter before working out the politics of presenting it to their constituents and to Parliament — was a severe tactical mistake that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December. -www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/united-states-and-iraq-had-not-expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
“None of what you quote changes what I posted.”-It directly refutes your central claim. While the President’s supporters would very much like him to be blameless for the withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq (notwithstanding the fact that he took credit for the withdrawal at the time) the facts indicate that a deal with Iraq was possible, but the President either was uninterested in pursuing it or was too inept to successfully do so. Notwithstanding popular dissatisfaction with foreign troop occupation there was a strong desire in the Iraqi government to retain a troop presence. By demanding a formal act of parliament to confer immunity rather than use some less-visible alternative that might have saved Iraqi face the President more or less spiked negotiations. With the American President apparently unwilling to maintain American soldiers in Iraq, what incentive would the Iraqi government have to lose face and betray weakness by uselessly begging for their return?-I will admit that the Iraqi government should have done more to ensure that negotiations would succeed. But the President had the ability to find a way to retain soldiers in Iraq while saving Iraqi face, including, yes, what might have been an unusual use of diplomatic immunity. The record shows that he made no effort to do so, and we now see the consequences of his diplomacy.-For those who are interested in the topic and have come across this discussion, here are two more relevant links for consideration:-www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/why-obama-owns-iraq.php-http://sweetness-light.com/archive/did-obama-negotiate-with-iraq-over-troops
OmqR-IV.0 over 9 years ago
In light of some of the atrocities committed against Iraqis where soldiers or contractors mercenaries were not prosecuted by the US occupational authorities or US military for blatant misconduct, including murders; or, if they were court-martialed, let off with a slap on the wrist, then Iraq would have not have demanded that US troops be liable under Iraqi laws for their…atrocities.
…but you wanna do what you like with impunity…shrug
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
“You mean like an executive order? That sort of thing which conservatives hate Obama doing?”-Criticism of President Obama’s executive overreaches focuses on his use of executive power in areas that properly fall within the responsibility of the Legislature, such as by administrative actions that are not supported by Federal Law. Foreign policy, however, is primarily an executive responsibility, and the President has a great deal of discretion in dealing with foreign powers. I am sure that the Senate would have ratified any arrangement he was able to reach with the Iraqi government, if ratification were necessary.-“No. Maliki gets the blame for the revolt of the Sunnis. Maliki was elected by the Iraqis.”-The articles I linked to noted that the Bush Administration was able to exert a moderating influence on Maliki while US troops were in the country. After our withdrawal he began to govern in a more sectarian fashion; in his defense, without US support and with a still-developing Iraqi army he may have felt the need to shore up a power base.-“And we are supposed to believe that a “few thousand” (at most) troops left for training purposes would keep the peace and Maliki in line? Lots of wishful thinking in all that.”-The articles I linked to discussed retaining a force of 8,000 to 20,000 soldiers. A force of that size, together with the infrastructure to rapidly support additional deployment at need, would have been very useful against ISIS when it invaded Iraq. It would also have given the US a potential moderating influence over the Maliki government, although I will concede that President Obama was uninterested in dealing with Iraq and would probably have given the country’s developing democracy little attention nor support.-“And that unusual use of diplomatic immunity was stupid because …”-Contrary to your statements, diplomatic immunity is used to cover soldiers in foreign countries. Furthermore, the soldiers we recently sent to Iraq are covered by the sort of diplomatic arrangement that President Obama refused to accept back in 2011:- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/world/middleeast/us-advisory-troops-get-immunity-from-iraqi-law.html-The diplomatic option was just one of several possible options available to the American and Iraqi governments as they looked for a way to maintain a US presence while saving Iraqi face. By insisting on the most stringent and difficult option the President essentially cut off these possibilities.-Legal evidence may not be like scientific evidence, but when we are in the realm of politics it is the best measure of fact. And with the evidence available to us I have no doubt that President Bush would have negotiated an extension to the SOFA with Iraq. Even if that failed he would have remained engaged with the country and its government; faced with a year’s advanced notice of the threat posed by ISIS (as the Obama administration received) President Bush would have heeded the Iraq government’s calls for help. And yes, the left would be calling him an imperialist for it.
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
President Bush was able to predict the consequences to Iraq if American soldiers were removed too hastily:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-george-w-bush-was-right-about-iraq-pullout/2014/09/08/6ddd91b2-374e-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html-As for the proper discipline for examining political events I partially accept your point, for my language was inexact. I meant to emphasize that it would be foolish to rely on “scientific evidence,” as opposed to the sort of evidence accepted at law or in history, in evaluating political news.
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
“But in 2011, American military lawyers deemed such assurances insufficient and insisted troops stay only if legal immunity was approved by the Iraqi Parliament.
So Obama agrees with the military assessment and he’s wrong. Got it."-Well well! A short while ago you criticized lawyers for putting their opinions above the level of facts, but now that you have found some attorneys who agree with you their opinions are authoritative! Of course legal opinions do not trump facts, especially when (as is the case here) they are offered on behalf of a client who is looking for legal justification for his preferred course of action. American troops abroad generally operate pursuant to agreements with local governments and do not require parliamentary action to support their presence. In addition, the President’s lawyer’s opinion was evidently not so strong as to prevent the President from sending American troops into Iraq without parliamentary cover in 2014:-http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/06/25/iraq-and-the-immunity-dodge/-“The NYT articles indicates that the final number of troops agreed upon was 5000 which agrees with what I said.”-You said “a few thousand at most.” And the Times article only mentions that the figure of 5,000 was “discussed.” Other articles I linked indicate that US and Iraqi military sources preferred a larger force. Again, there is no evidence that the Obama Administration made any effort to push this issue. Even a small force could have done some good, however, by stiffening the Iraqi army, by providing a basis for influence to the Iraqi political structure; and by maintaining infrastructure for additional deployment if and when desired.-“It was Maliki who would be using an executive order to offer immunity. Like Obama, he would have drawn substantial criticism for the use of same to get around his legislative branch.”-Iraq’s Constitution differs from that of the United States, and I do not know the full extent of Maliki’s powers. However, sources involved in negotiations agree that there were options available to Maliki and the Obama Administration short of formal Parliamentary approval. Again, one of the reasons we know this is true is that we have not sought or obtained legal immunity from parliament for the soldiers we have sent to Iraq this year. -“The facts are that prior to signing the 2008 SOFA, Bush was not able negotiate a good deal.”-President Bush agreed to the 2008 SOFA after President Obama’s election. The terms of the withdrawal followed President Obama’s declared timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Had John McCain been elected President Bush might well have sought a different outcome, but he chose to leave President Obama with terms that the new President claimed to like, while at the same time leaving Mr. Obama the flexibility to negotiate an extension had he wished to do so.-In response to your speculation I can tell you how a different President would have secured an extension for a continued American troop presence: by giving Iraqi officials political cover to move to establish troop immunity. This could be done in a number of ways. Instead, it became clear to the Iraqi government that President Obama wasn’t much interested in maintaining any American presence in Iraq. Under those conditions, why should anyone stick out their neck?-In response to your stinger, I would not have to imagine Palin involved in negotiations because she would have the good sense not to stick her foot in. Palin’s treatment of John McCain demonstrates that she has loyalty and discretion, and I would trade her for Biden as Vice President in a heartbeat.
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
If you read the links that I have provided you will find evidence that alternatives were possible. You will also find that people accurately predicted what would happen if we took the course that the President ultimately chose.-This is an important issue, all the more so because the President’s defenders seek to insulate him from responsibility for prematurely withdrawing US forces from Iraq (a step which he took credit for in 2011!) by arguing that there was nothing different that he could have done. The record shows that he could have acted differently, had he wished. It also shows that the way he actually acted was consistent with his stated wishes, both before and after the withdrawal, all the way up to the point that his decision began to appear to be a political liability for him.
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
You are correct in supposing that I do not understand your problem with my showing evidence that the President’s negotiations with the Iraqi government could have ended differently. You seem to think that outcomes of actions are wholly unpredictable and that no one should be held responsible for making one choice over another. By the standard you propose no driver could ever be culpable for an accident – after all, isn’t any analysis into her actions a futile exercise in “could have/would have?” -You suggest that my criticism of the President’s policy is merely a matter of focusing on those who predicted disaster before the fact and were lucky(?) enough to be right. But this is not a case of the President going to a roulette wheel and placing his bet on “red” only for the ball to end up on “black.” Negotiations with the Iraqi government was an event over which the President had a great deal of control. The links I provided show that the President unnecessarily decreased the chances that negotiations would succeed. They also show that the President’s words and actions suggested that he did not, in fact, want negotiations to succeed. It therefore appears that the outcome was one that the President actually wanted, or at least considered acceptable. His subsequent lack of engagement with Iraq and his failure to respond to Iraq’s requests for help further suggest that this was simply not a priority for him. The outcomes we have seen are driven more by decisions than by bad luck. -The book you cite sounds interesting and I may take a look at it. On the topic of book recommendations I would suggest Churchill’s Second World War – which contains many examples of predictable catastrophes and of poor foreign policy decisions.--Baslim:“The first paragraph goes beyond saying that 5000 was "discussed.’ It was chosen.”-You are correct. I had overlooked that passage. The much lower figure of 5,000 (which you dismissed as being insufficient to do anything useful in Iraq) was chosen … by President Obama.-“But with the agreement being submitted weeks before US elections, there would be no reason for the agreement to have been tailored as you suggest.”-Bush didn’t actually authorize his ambassador to sign the agreement until after the Presidential elections were settled. Which is, notably also when the Iraqi cabinet approved the deal and Congress was briefed, according to your source. In other words, the agreement was not finalized until after the election.
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
“However, when I see something like I did on your site, I consider that evidence of poor understanding of science, data and the scientific method.”-If you saw evidence of poor understanding of science, data, and the scientific method, you should have offered that evidence to refute my source and its claims. But instead of relying on facts to make your argument you simply assert your opinion that the site is bad and that lawyers are generally bad at understanding scientific matters. In other words, you seem to be making the very kind of argument that you criticize. -“First, I said, in reply to your comment, that a few thousand troops left for training purposes would not be able to keep peace or keep Maliki in line. They would be useful for training. Peacekeeping? Not so much.”-Here is what you said:- And we are supposed to believe that a “few thousand” (at most) troops left for training purposes would keep the peace and Maliki in line? Lots of wishful thinking in all that.
Why should the POTUS leave sitting ducks for extremists to knock off? What would be the gain there?
-
I wanted to say in reply that the low number of troops was a choice made by President Obama, not forced upon him by the situation, but I could not remember whether this was the case so I only pointed out that there was room in negotiations for a larger force, had the President wished to press the issue. But, as you subsequently pointed out, the 5,000 figure was in fact the President’s decision. In other words, the President who would only commit to placing in Iraq such a small number of troops as you claim would be insufficient to do any good in Iraq, and whose presence would only result in demoralizing deaths. The article you link admits that one criticism of the President is that by making such a low troop commitment he gave the Iraqi government little incentive to risk their political necks to agree to an time extension – and very significantly fails to address this criticism with anything more than handwaving. -Now, I have explained why I think that even 5,000 troops would have provided a positive influence on the Iraqi government and bolstered Iraq’s defensive abilities and stability. You have not addressed my arguments and I do not consider it useful to revisit the topic now. But it is important to note that the troop presence you distained as not worth the effort was not selected by military advisors, nor imposed by the Iraqi government, but chosen by President Obama. If the Iraqi government shared your view that this troop level offered little benefit for the political price of extending the SOFA it only bolsters my case against the President’s conduct of negotiations.-“I have found a piece which indicates that Bush did in fact tailor the SOFA to agree with Obama’s views.”-Here, as above, you attack me for stating facts that you later acknowledge to be true. In addition, the article you cite notes that President Bush could well have negotiated harder for terms he preferred. His decision not to do so needlessly (given the stated views of the President-elect) probably benefitted long-term relations with Iraq and improved the chances of his successor later negotiating a further extension when he cared to try. Unfortunately it appears that President Obama did not care and did not really try.--Martens: It seems that we are talking past each other. You have not addressed any of the points I made in my response to your previous comment. And the conclusion that your comment invites (that humans cannot anticipate the effects of real-world events) is so ridiculous I can only imagine that the point you are trying to make is much more limited than your language suggests. If so, my response to your point would likely be that this situation does not fall within the category that you are attempting to define.
TripleAxel over 9 years ago
“The basic fact is, that in extremely complex situations in which we can have at best only a partial comprehension of the variables involved, the outcomes we assign are approximations at the very best.-I will try to remember your words if we ever get into another discussion regarding the claims of Global Warming alarmists. But your comment attacks a position I do not take. You claim I want surety, and declare it to be impossible. I am arguing not for surety but for probability. Your principle is more properly addressed to those who claim that it was impossible for President Obama to reach any agreement with Iraq to maintain American soldiers in their country (and also, presumably, impossible for him to subsequently assist the Iraqi government during their country’s ensuing destabilization). I can, however understand the argument: Given the evidence of his handling of negotiations this is the only situation that could shield President Obama from criticism.--Baslim: I rest upon the comments that I have previously made and leave you with the last word in our debate.