Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 09/11/2014 View Wed 09/10/2014 View Tue 09/09/2014 View Mon 09/08/2014 View Sun 09/07/2014 View Sat 09/06/2014 View Fri 09/05/2014
1
2014-09-11 Iraq
The White House lied to Americans for years about what bad shape Iraq was in
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by DarthVader 2014-09-11 01:08|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ]  Top

#1 When the U.S. pulled out of the excellent air bases it had built in Iraq, the Iranians had to know they were being given the green light.
Posted by Besoeker 2014-09-11 01:14||   2014-09-11 01:14|| Front Page Top

#2 Balad Airbase with an air wing, a combat brigade, a Joint SpecOps battalion sized element, as well as a training battalion, with all the needed logistical support - thats what the original Bush plan was. And had it been in place, ISIS and Iraq as they exist today would likely not have happened (discounting of course the massive incompetence of Obama, Clinton/Kerry, and the "professional" diplomats)
Posted by OldSpook 2014-09-11 03:34||   2014-09-11 03:34|| Front Page Top

#3 
Posted by Besoeker 2014-09-11 04:15||   2014-09-11 04:15|| Front Page Top

#4 A military filled with PC officers didn't work out too well did it? Just ignore the lesson there.
Posted by Procopius2k 2014-09-11 07:53||   2014-09-11 07:53|| Front Page Top

#5 OS's #2 is spot on. It would have required a bit of base expansion, but bulldozing the slums around Balad was needed and long overdue anyway. I would have recommended both LSA Anaconda [Balad] and FOB Speicher outside of Tikrit. ISIS would have never entered Iraq from Syria and lived to tell about it. Just my opinion.
Posted by Besoeker 2014-09-11 08:04||   2014-09-11 08:04|| Front Page Top

#6 What surprises me is that NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief only now says the President and his administration is lying. The NYTs has been running cover for them up until now.
Posted by JohnQC 2014-09-11 08:58||   2014-09-11 08:58|| Front Page Top

#7 ..same model as CNN and Saddam. The only ethics in journalism is to keep the Inner Party in power and anyone else out.
Posted by Procopius2k 2014-09-11 09:19||   2014-09-11 09:19|| Front Page Top

#8 I appreciate and agree with OS in #2. However --

-- it wasn't possible, and not just because Obama was a feckless, weak-kneed, spineless man who didn't let the facts interfere with his hallucinatory view of the world.

It was also not possible because of Iraqi politics. In retrospect it's clear to see that Nouri al-Maliki thought he could build a political machine for himself that would be of the classic Arab mold -- a thugocracy, a dictatorship, a strong horse. That would let him run things until he was old and gray. It would have to be done in a 21st century style but with Iranian help he could do it.

I think that's why the Iraqis could never accommodate our concerns over basing rights and status of personnel -- all that got in the way of building the dictatorship. Over time our presence in Iraq would have had the same moderating, democratizing influence that our presence had in South Korea (yes, yes, it took 40 years but still). Any perceptive thug would look at that example and know that it would be a bad idea to have American troops around.

Yes, Obama lied. Repeatedly, as did his principal aides. But Iraq is as much the fault of the Iraqi leadership as it is Obama.
Posted by Steve White 2014-09-11 09:35||   2014-09-11 09:35|| Front Page Top

#9 When thinking of a U.S. - Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement or 'SOFA', it helps to think in terms of Susan Rice, the Sunday talk shows and the Mohammad Video. The failed SOFA agreement was a piece of diplomatic paper, and a convenient cover for action. It should not have been a mission stopper that would potentially lead to the creation of a Islamic Caliphate.
Posted by Besoeker 2014-09-11 09:45||   2014-09-11 09:45|| Front Page Top

#10  Interesting stuff in the rest of the journalist's Reddit Ask Me Anything linked in the article, too. Link Worth a quick skim.
Posted by trailing wife 2014-09-11 11:21||   2014-09-11 11:21|| Front Page Top

#11 A SOFA agreement glitch would not be a show stopper unless the empty suits wanted it to be a deal breaker.

An agreement between gentlemen on the principles of the agreement and a handshake should have been enough until the wonks and drones got the details worked out.

The SOFA was an excuse to bail out and fulfill a promise to the leftist/liberals/pacifists constituency (which I have never understood WHY the empty suit gave them so much power in policy making)
Posted by Bill Clinton 2014-09-11 11:32||   2014-09-11 11:32|| Front Page Top

#12 ..cause mommy and everyone else in his universe said America was the evil colonial empire?
Posted by Procopius2k 2014-09-11 11:43||   2014-09-11 11:43|| Front Page Top

#13 Very aware of the politics. Hence the comments about State - proper diplomats would not be there to kiss Malikis ass, but to pressure him and force him into doing what's right, as well as developing political opposition contacts to provide political pressure.

A while back after the military officially departed, I was briefly (72 hour hop, all the time stayed inside the concrete barriers) at Taji with some contractor friends who were training officers, and the overall Shia bias was very obvious. And it was a political issue that US State Dept (the facilitating agency, not the DoD) willfully ignored.

Maliki would not have been such an issue had he been properly and firmly handled. Perhaps given a history lesson about Ngo Diem... That and a bit of money in overseas banks in his name, probably would have been enough leverage.
Posted by OldSpook 2014-09-11 13:27||   2014-09-11 13:27|| Front Page Top

#14 Obama and State (and the leftist... Redundant I know) need to realize this isn't Star Trek - there is no "prime directive", and our primary mission should be the furtherance of US interests, which means that the interests of the native folks do not come first unless they happen to coincide with the best interests of the US.
Posted by OldSpook 2014-09-11 13:33||   2014-09-11 13:33|| Front Page Top

#15 If you like your Iraq you can keep it.
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2014-09-11 13:35||   2014-09-11 13:35|| Front Page Top

#16 "the Iraqis could never accommodate our concerns over basing rights and status of personnel -- all that got in the way of building the dictatorship. Over time our presence in Iraq would have had the same moderating, democratizing influence that our presence had in South Korea (yes, yes, it took 40 years but still)" I agree with your assessment. However, the US electorate has pretty well lost interest in 40 year long efforts to turn backward countries around. And in S. Korea they still have signs up in some places saying "No Americans allowed". At Least Islam never got a foothold in S. Korea. The Kim dynasty is as crazy as Koreans can endure.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2014-09-11 15:11||   2014-09-11 15:11|| Front Page Top

23:12 trailing wife
22:41 Old Patriot
22:38 Frank G
22:37 newc
22:32 trailing wife
22:30 Jerkface Killa
22:16 Frank G
22:13 Barbara
21:27 Besoeker
21:25 Besoeker
21:25 Frank G
21:23 Frank G
20:49 Rob Crawford
20:35 Bangkok Billy
20:24 Barbara
20:23 Bangkok Billy
20:21 Barbara
20:19 Sgt. Mom
20:13 Bill Clinton
20:09 phil_b
20:04 Rambler in Virginia
19:56 Old Patriot
19:51 Old Patriot
19:45 Old Patriot









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com