FDL: Obama’s Pentagon Strategy: A Leaner, More Efficient Empire

[Luminous Animal]

"By Charles Davis and Medea Benjamin
http://my.firedoglake.com/codepink/2012/01/06/obamas-pentagon-strategy-a-leaner-more-efficient-empire/

In an age when U.S. power can be projected through private mercenary armies and unmanned Predator drones, the U.S. military need no longer rely on massive, conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial agenda, a fact President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no mistake: while the tactics may be changing, the U.S. taxpayer – and poor foreigners abroad – will still be saddled with overblown military budgets and militaristic policies.

...

Unfortunately, though, rather than renouncing empire and endless war, Obama’s stated strategy for the military going forward just reaffirms the U.S. commitment to both. Rather than renouncing the last decade of war, it states that the bloody and disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan – gently termed “extended operations” – were pursued “to bring stability to those countries.”

And Leon Panetta assured the American public that even with the changes, the U.S. would still be able to fight two major wars at the same time—and win. And Obama assured America’s military contractors and coffin makers that their lifeline – U.S. taxpayers’ money – would still be funneled their way in obscene bucket loads."

[SunsetDreams]

1. Does everything get a bad spin?

I thought downsizing the military would be supported by Democrats.

Would be nice to read the entire article, in order to evaluate the whole thing.
Do you have a link?

[TheWraith]

3. At FireDogLake, it does.

When the site's owner is employed by Republicans to defeat Democrats, and staffs the site with lunatic Green Party members like Madea Benjamin, it's inevitable.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Lunatic is being so overused, I now read it as "someone I disagree with but I

am too lazy to stick to the point."

[villager]

14. And of course the irony of using a GOP talking point like "lunatic Green Party Member"

...is routinely lost on those defending the ongoing blurring of GOP and Democratic positions by claiming that unlike the Republicans, the Dems aren't Imperial, etc...

[emulatorloo]

37. I have personally never heard a Republican or GOP operative ever mention the Green Party

So I don't think they have a talking point like that.

[villager]

83. Gosh, well if *you personally* have never heard it, that negates all the times I've been called such

things during my environmental work, read it in print, or heard it on AM radio!

By the way, they append "lunatic" and "wacko" to everything environmental: Greens, Green Party, anti-pollution law, common sense environmental protection, etc., etc...

[EFerrari]

53. Lunatic Green Party members like Medea Benjamin who was often the only dissenting voice

on Capitol Hill during the Bush predations.

It's too bad we don't have many many more lunatics like Medea.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Edited to add the link...

He's downsizing personnel and slowing the growth of defense increases. He is not making defense cuts.

Remarks by the President on the Defense Strategic Review

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/05/remarks-president-defense-strategic-review
Here:
As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and the end of long-term nation-building with large military footprints -- we’ll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces.
...

And here:
"Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration. And I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined.

[Enrique]

7. here's the link

http://my.firedoglake.com/codepink/2012/01/06/obamas-pentagon-strategy-a-leaner-more-efficient-empire/

Code Pink aren't Democrats primarily. They are anti-war activists.

[JackRiddler]

25. There's downsizing and then there's "downsizing"

Just like there's banking regulation and "regulation." The difference with the cosmetic "regulation" is that the next crash happens anyway.

The difference with the PR downsizing of the military as opposed to the real thing is that the next war happens anyway.

The Pentagon remains sacrosanct. This "cut" is actually an increase in absolute terms. Obama underlined in his speech that the Pentagon budget will remain higher than in 2008, and that's not counting war spending. Cutting back on future planned spending is not an actual cut. (Example: I spend 100. In two years I plan to spend 120. But wait, I'm going to cut that. In two years I will spend only 110. That's a cut!)

Panetta gave you a laughable two-war scenario: Why should we ever want such a thing?! How in the world do you believe "US security" would ever necessitate wars with both of these nations on the other side of the globe? That's not a question of security, it's a question of empire and the drive to be the one who settles all major questions for everyone.

The countries he's talking about taking on simultaneously are not coincidentally the two remaining targets in Bush's "Axis of Evil." This is how the US military-industrial complex works. It's independent of administrations.

[Luminous Animal]

38. +1

[DCBob]

74. Obama could announce a cure for cancer and FDL would assume he is promoting a drug for big pharma.

Its pathetic.

[TheWraith]

2. Classic FDL: Find something to bash Obama about no matter the subject.

And when nothing exists, make shit up to whine and have a temper tantrum about.

[BeFree]

8. Good on FDL

Empire is our biggest problem after environmental destruction and global climate change.

I am so glad some of the press has balls enough to bring the truth. The rest of the media is hog-swallowing.

[frazzled]

9. Yes, a black lining to be found in every silver cloud

Their motto should be: "All ye who enter here, abandon hope."

[ProSense]

6. Right,

"The truth is that the Obama administration’s “new” strategy is more of the same"

...cutting $1 trillion from the defense budget and reducing the number of troops by nearly 500,000 is "more of the same."

I guess the authors saw the end of the Iraq war as the same as the launch of the illegal invasion.

[Luminous Animal]

10. He is reducing the growth of the defense budget primarily with personnel

cuts.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/05/remarks-president-defense-strategic-review
Here:
As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and the end of long-term nation-building with large military footprints -- we’ll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces.
...

And here:
"Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow]/b], because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration. And I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined.

[ProSense]

11. And

"He is reducing the growth of the defense budget primarily with personnel cuts."

...that's "more of the same"?

What about the other cuts like reducing the nuclear arsenal?

"More of the same"?

[Luminous Animal]

13. Shifting the killing from "boots on the ground" to drone bombing

campaigns.

Growing the military budget, no matter how slowly, is more of the similar.

[ProSense]

17. And

"Growing the military budget, no matter how slowly, is more of the similar."

..."more of the similar" is not equal to "more of the same."

Otherwise, we wouldn't be playing word games.

[Luminous Animal]

19. The same that the author's are referring to is this...

"The truth is that the Obama administration’s “new” strategy is more of the same—a reaffirmation of the U.S. government’s commitment to militarism for the all the usual reasons: to promote American hegemony and, by extension, the interests of politically connected capital. And U.S. officials aren’t shy about that."

[ProSense]

22. Well,

"The truth is that the Obama administration’s “new” strategy is more of the same—a reaffirmation of the U.S. government’s commitment to militarism for the all the usual reasons: to promote American hegemony and, by extension, the interests of politically connected capital. And U.S. officials aren’t shy about that."

...it's a good thing most people weren't expecting Obama to declare an end to the military in an announcement yesterday.

Have to start somewhere.

[Nevernose]

63. I don't know the context of the nuclear arsenal cuts in question.

It's intresting to note that our nuclear weapons are actually budgeted under the Department of Energy, and very little of their operation and upkeep is directly reflected in the military budget.

[BeFree]

12. Well, good

But the fact that Obama, in his first DoD budget, called for an increase, was just a sign that real change was nothing but a campaign slogan that was discarded on Jan.21, 2009.

All your protestations to the contrary, PS, Obama speaks much louder and clearer than you.

[ProSense]

15. But

"But the fact that Obama, in his first DoD budget, called for an increase, was just a sign that real change was nothing but a campaign slogan that was discarded on Jan.21, 2009."

...now he's calling for a decrease so something is changing. This is now.

[Luminous Animal]

16. He is calling for a decrease in growth.

The President:

In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration. And I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/05/remarks-president-defense-strategic-review

[ProSense]

18. Yeah,

"He is calling for a decrease in growth."

...inflation happens. Cutting $1 trillion is cutting $1 trillion even if the cost of things go up.

[BeFree]

21. It won't happen

Obama doesn't have the power to change the Empire. I doubt that he even wants to. This "...calling for a decrease" is just another slogan. He's had 3 years to file for a decrease and he just signed a huge increase that also makes the military his LEO brigade that can arrest anybody anywhere and anytime, and hold for as long as he wants.

[ProSense]

23. Seriously

It won't happen...Obama doesn't have the power to change the Empire. This "...calling for a decrease" is just another slogan. He's had 3 years to file for a decrease and he just signed a huge increase that also makes the military his LEO brigade that can arrest anybody anywhere and anytime, and hold for as long as he wants.

...what's the argument: He doesn't have the power and this decrease is a slogan?

[BeFree]

24. You get it!!

He doesn't have the power, and if he had it he wouldn't change Empire so this "decrease" is just a slogan. You actually get it.!

Clinton, remember him? He did decrease the DoD budget. Why is Obama so lame? Because he loves being the Emperor?

[ProSense]

28. Hmmm?

"Clinton, remember him? He did decrease the DoD budget. Why is Obama so lame? Because he loves being the Emperor?"

Why is it that you believe Clinton had the power and not Obama? Clinton, a President who didn't inherit two wars, decreasing the defense budget briefly by about $60 billion, means that Obama's proposed decrease of $1 trillion is just a "slogan"?

Did Clinton reduce the size of the military? Did he end a weapons system (Obama is the first to ever do so). Did he reduce the arsenal?

When Clinton took office, the defense budget was $435 billion. When he left, it was $23 billion less. A reduction about equal to Obama's current budget from the time he took office.



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/historical_defense_budget.html

This new proposal is going to cut $1 trillion from the budget and make other significant cuts to operations.

[BeFree]

30. Nice spin

After 8 years under Clinton the DoD budget was smaller. Under Obama, there will be a huge increase on his trend, And the wars are not included in the DoD budget, so your spin has spun out. Why do you make excuses for the deadly increases?

What drives you to support Empire? Does Empire make you happy so much that you post and spin and post again and again in support of Empire?

[JackRiddler]

33. It's amazing - it's so normal that being just under $700 billion

for the machinery of war, wasting all that wealth, destabilizing regions around the world, with no benefit to the interests of the American people, in a time of economic disaster and fiscal austerity, is being sold as a historic move toward peace.

[think]

78. Unfortunately Republicans don't feel safe unless we spend copious amounts of money that

can't be accounted for for wars we shouldn't be in.

It's called fiscal conservatism

[JackRiddler]

79. The problem here is bipartisan.

[think]

82. No disagreement there. Bush nearly doubled the war budget and Dems should not feel obligated

to keep spending at that level.

My thoughts: End the fucking wars,lay off the military contractors, and close some of the "cold war" overseas military bases that serve no purpose in the modern military scenario.

The reason we don't is to protect the multi national corporations who dodge taxes in both the US and in the countries they exploit, out source American jobs, pollute 3rd world countries, and exploit the labor in these countries.

Peace.

[ProSense]

34. Can

"After 8 years under Clinton the DoD budget was smaller. Under Obama, there will be a huge increase on his trend, And the wars are not included in the DoD budget, so your spin has spun out."

...you say by how much?

Is this accurate:

Clinton inherited $435 billion
Clinton Yr 8 $412 billion

Obama inherited $699 billion
Obama Yr 3 $676

Throughout Clinton's term the decreases amounted to an average of less than $2 billion a year.

Obama's proposal is for $100 billion.

"What drives you to support Empire? Does Empire make you happy so much that you post and spin and post again and again in support of Empire? "

You can't be serious. You're making excuses for Clinton and accusing someone else of supporting "empire"?

Ludicrous.

[BeFree]

35. No Not accurate

Clinton reduced the DoD budget to under 300M.

Wherever you are getting your false numbers needs to be questioned more so than say, Greenwald, because they are full of shit.

try to answer a simple question, PS, do you support the continued expansion of Empire, or not. You certainly seem to be in total support.

[ProSense]

36. Maybe

"Clinton reduced the DoD budget to under 300M. "

...you can provide a link that the DoD budget was $300 million?


Are you saying the numbers here are false: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/historical_defense_budget.html

[FarLeftFist]

77. But Clinton wasn't fighting 2 MAJOR WARS either.

[JackRiddler]

26. Cuts in future growth projections are not cuts.

There's a reason the Pentagon plans such unlimited growth.

So that in the end, they get the same thing even when the wars are said to end.

Obama underlined in his own words that the defense budget will always remain greater than the last Bush budget of 2008.

Perhaps with inflation this will represent a small reduction, but not in dollars.

This is not a cut. Half of the discretionary budget is still being pulverized for the mad game of global empire at perpetual war.

[ProSense]

29. What?

"Cuts in future growth projections are not cuts."

The proposal is to cut spending on an annual basis and slow growth.

[JackRiddler]

31. So to quote you, which is it, "cut spending" or "slow growth"?!

Obama said yesterday:

Over the next ten years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this—it will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush Administration. And I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong—and our nation secure—with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined.

"Still grow," "still be larger." As he says, this is not a cut. Who am I going to believe, his words or your spin?

Cuts in planned future growth are not cuts in actual spending. Spending will stay the same or possibly grow, depending on supplementary war budgets and the rate of inflation. The absolute dollar amount will not be cut.

Note: Pretend incomprehension is not an answer. "Hmmmm?" and "What?" and other items of miscellaneous snark are not answers. Engage the facts. Earn your snark.

[ProSense]

46. Here:

$1 trillion, tens of thousands of troops, arsenal reduction and more.

Look at it this way, before the announcement, none of this was on the table.

[JackRiddler]

58. I'm sorry, that doesn't answer the question. Perhaps I should be more specific.

For example: What is the current US regular military budget? What is the current US regular military budget plus war supplementaries as a proportion of discretionary spending?

Under this plan, in five years, will these figures be higher or lower? Will they be higher or lower than in the 2008 military budget?

[ProSense]

66. Well

"For example: What is the current US regular military budget? What is the current US regular military budget plus war supplementaries as a proportion of discretionary spending?"

The current 2012 budget is $22 billion less than the 2011 budget. The FY12 budget includes $117 billion for wars, down from $159 in 2011.

Isn't it fun to take every attempt to make progress and try to turn it into something insignificant?

What impact do you think a $1 trillion dollar reduction will have, and in the long run a reduction in personnel and military systems?

No matter how persistent the attempt is to make write this off as nothing, $1 trillion cuts to defense and the scope of the President's proposal aren't put on the table as a matter of standard operating procedure.

Defense is being cut, and that's a good thing.

[Whisp]

20. ah, I see FDL links are making a comeback

Seems like they were missing for a time and being replaced by the terminally enraged Glenn Greenward, so maybe it's his time to rest and lie low till the dust settles about his very kind assessment of Ron 'the fuck' Paul.

[JackRiddler]

27. No substantive dealing with the critiques.

Just projections of feelings on to critics, as though you're inside their heads.

It's called ad hominem.

[emulatorloo]

39. An analogy: I have read several Glenn Beck rants. They are full of fact twisting, half-truths,

insane speculation and paranoid fantasy. I know what Glenn Beck is all about now.

I am not going to waste time reading every new Glenn Beck rant and deal "substantively with the critique"

That would be insane.

--

Firedoglake used to be an excellent blog, it was the first thing I read everyday for a while. Very thoughtful, fact based analysis.

They are in a whole 'nother place now - Wild speculation as fact, incessant negative spin about democrats, sensationalistic "The Sky Is Falling" headlines and so forth.

They simply are no longer a credible source as far as I am concerned. In my humble opinion, the shift in tone came around the time they decided to make the site a money-making proposition.

One of the big turning points for me was an appearance by Ms. Hamsher on the Lawrence O'donnell show. She was part of a panel discussion. In my opinion she seemed more about good sounding hyperbolic statements than an actual grounding in facts.

[JackRiddler]

41. Military spending will remain at or above current levels.

The only question is whether the military and war budgets will be slightly lower after accounting for inflation. The absolute spending in dollars is supposed to rise.

In Obama's words, the military budget will remain larger than at the end of the Bush years and larger than at least the next 10 nations combined.

This means that the military and war supplemental budgets, plus the costs that follow from war (such as higher veterans benefits and higher interest payments), will continue to make up the majority of the federal discretionary budget.

In Panetta's words, the military will be built to engage in a major land war in Korea and then deal with the simultaneous blocking of the Straits of Hormuz.

I find it hard to make statements more hyperbolic than these.

And yet: They are just facts.

In combination with the expansion of the drone and other largely remote-based programs, the escalations of hostilities on several fronts (Afpak, Yemen, Somalia), and new legalisms defining the homeland and the rest of the world as battlespace and allowing indefinite detention without charges, lawyers or even notification, it is no exaggeration to speak of a leaner, tougher imperialism.

One would have to intentionally distort to compare such factual statements to the defactualized monologues of a Glenn Beck. (What's with the strawmen? Is that how it's going to be when we disagree? Always accuse those deviating from a simplistic D-party line of being R's, or Freepers, or Paulites, or Becks?)

And if something has changed at FDL and indeed at DU, then I submit it's that we've crossed the threshold where there is any rationale for supporting the Obama administration other than lesser-evilism. Consider what that means; and as a supporter you shouldn't be so intent on rapping everyone who says it on the knuckles, because lesser-evilists and not full supporters are going to make up the bulk of his voters come November.

[woo me with science]

50. Excellent post. nt

[JackRiddler]

32. They never went away.

In the 10 years of DU, people have felt free to link many different sites and discuss a wide variety of matters, including such as are critical of Democratic Party policy, especially from the left. It has never been otherwise. To say FDL links are making a "comeback" is to pretend there's a status quo in favor of US government policy that critics are now challenging. In fact, the status quo here has always been hospitable to critique of the US government.

[joshcryer]

48. Lying low is what they want. You have to stand your ground.

[Puregonzo1188]

40. It's not about Obama, every US President is in the business of maintaing the US Empire.

[JackRiddler]

42. Yes, of course.

It's ridiculous to imagine there isn't also a permanent government, and not always a D or R administration to side with or fight.

[Puregonzo1188]

55. Funny, when Bush was President there all these posts about how many US bases around the world, list

of US interventions, and systemic critiques of US imperialism and the military-industrial complex.

Now we try to act like Iraq was just a fluke under a bad President.

[jpak]

43. FDL = LOL

yup

[paulk]

44. a content free post

address the article or lose credibility

[ProSense]

45. Wow

"address the article or lose credibility"

...you have a lot of power!

[paulk]

52. and you have nothing to say

I wouldn't dream of speaking for anyone but myself

but I'm personally sick of posts like the one I responded to

I'm also sick of posts like yours



If you want to address the subject of the OP, then do so

otherwise I'll ask you to not waste my time

[ProSense]

57. Well,

I wouldn't dream of speaking for anyone but myself

but I'm personally sick of posts like the one I responded to

I'm also sick of posts like yours



If you want to address the subject of the OP, then do so

otherwise I'll ask you to not waste my time

...I'm sick of you announcing that you're sick and wasting other people's time.

[woo me with science]

49. You are correct, of course. nt

[bhikkhu]

47. "Attack them on their strengths" - rove would be proud

...looking at the president who ended the Iraq war, who has scheduled a full withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by 2014, who proposes a long-term reduction in military forces, and who has pushed through the only serious reductions in military spending I can recall - they look at that and find much to criticize. Sometimes stuff like that is just embarrassing to read, coming from "our side"...

[paulk]

54. why would you assume it's "our side"?

The Democratic Party is as much in bed with the military industrial complex as the Republicans are.

The article lays out a liberal objection to the plan proposed by the President.

I'm a liberal.

That's my side.

I'm not embarrassed to say it.

I would be embarrassed by your "Rove" comment, OTOH, if I had made it...

[joshcryer]

61. 55-60% of Democrats in the House vote against the MIC, consistently.

So I don't agree with that. A lot of Democrats are indebted to the MIC because it helps their constituents and the MIC is embedded in our culture so much.

The Republicans vote for the MIC pretty much in a bloc, by 80% or more.

If the Democrats bloc voted like the Republicans we'd be able to stop most of this crap.

[bhikkhu]

70. If I laid out a dream-list of demands and expectations in 2008

they'd go something like - end the Iraq war, end the Afghanistan war, cut defense spending, and reduce the size of our global military footprint.

Now it seems that all of these are either achieved or on solid schedules for achievement. I can't see any logic for attacking the president on military strategy, except that that is a strength where rovian logic would require that he be attacked.

If nothing ever makes them happy, and nothing possible in the real world would please them, then why on earth would anyone even try? The chronically angry may have more need for a therapist than for an effective government.

[paulk]

72. sometimes it seems to me that the "real world"

is what needs the therapist...

The real world where our country spends more on it's military than the next ten combined.

If that's the definition of effective government, I'd just as soon be crazy...

[bhikkhu]

73. Its the direction that's important

Are we starting wars, building up our arsenals, beginning huge new weapons projects, expanding around the world, talking about "hundred year" wars, getting in deeper and deeper everywhere? No. All of those were true a short time ago during the bush presidency, but now its a long process of digging out of the mess, and steering things into a healthy direction.

The starting point for anything at any moment is right where you're standing - good or bad - and then its the direction you go from there that's important.

[paulk]

81. I take small comfort in this change of strategy

from the article -

“Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow,” the president told reporters, “but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow.” In fact, he added with a touch of pride, it “will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration,” totaling more than $700 billion a year and accounting for about half of the average American’s income tax. So much for the Pentagon’s budget being slashed – like we were promised – the way lawmakers are trying to cut those “failed domestic programs.”

The U.S. could cut its military spending in half tomorrow and still spend more than three times as much as its next nearest rival, China. That’s because China, instead of waging wars of choice around the world, prefers projecting its might by investing in its own country. On the other hand, the U.S. under the leadership of Obama is beefing up its military presence in China’s backyard, more interested in projecting its dwindling power than rebuilding its economy.


----------------


It's not about strategy, imho, it's about money. Money we don't have - being funneled into the trough of the military industrial complex while the infrastructure of our nation falls apart, while the economy destroys the middle class, while unemployment and poverty turn what was once the greatest country on the planet into a pale shadow of our expectations.

And I disagree with you on this - "The starting point for anything at any moment is right where you're standing". That's been the credo of the Obama administration from the start and it's their greatest failing, imo. Bush, after stealing the 2000 election, set out to reverse every Clinton administration policy he could - Obama, after winning one of the largest mandates in recent history, accepted the hard right turn of the Bush years as a fait accompli - he started from "where we were standing" instead of aggressively trying to roll back the degradations of his predecessor.

[Puregonzo1188]

56. The Iraq War ended BECAUSE THE IRAQIS THREW US OUT!

Do you think the Iraqis have no agency at all?

[joshcryer]

59. That assumes that McCain would've listened to them, which he would not have.

During 2009 thousands of Iraqi's were killed or injured due to sectarian bombings. He would've monopolized this and forced SOFA renegotiation. Obama did not do that.

[Puregonzo1188]

60. Obama tried really hard to keep US troops in longer, but couldn't get immunity.

This is largely due to the visceral reaction from the Iraqi public to the Collateral Murder video and the pressure they put on their government. Both Obama and al-Maliki wanted US troops to say longer. They left when the SOFA signed by Bush expired, after Obama failed to push back the Bush timeline.

How would McCain have dealt with the situation? I don't know. I suspect he would have pushed for an expansion, like Obama, and when the shit hit the fan for the US after Wikileaks what would he have done? Honestly, I don't know. What could he have done? Reinvaded the country? Toppled the parliament? Some sort of sneaky covert CIA stuff? Was that really an option--I mean we pretty much lost the war.

[joshcryer]

65. I disagree. He proposed it, it went through the discussions, it was denied.

It would've been irresponsible, wouldn't it, had he just said "Screw you!" to the Iraqi's? Obama was consistent on the fact that he always wanted to leave residual forces in Iraq, many people forget this. In the end Obama listened to Iraq-self-determination.

Gates wanted to renegotiate SOFA when the 2009 bombings happened, he saw an escalation in sectarian violence, and I think history shows us what happened. It never happened, Obama didn't jump on the opportunity to renegotiate as McCain would have. SOFA renegotiation was only proposed toward the end, just as a last gesture. The Iraqi's can play it as US imperialism, and liberals can play it as US imperialism, but you guys must've forgot Bush invaded that country unilaterally and didn't give a crap what the Iraqi's wanted. I see it as Obama fulfilling the "responsible" part of his pledge to "responsibly withdraw from Iraq."

[bhikkhu]

68. He didn't try hard at all - that's pretty obvious in retrospect

...and by not trying hard, and by allowing the Iraqi government to bluster a bit unchallenged, he also allowed the Iraqi government to gain some much needed respect and credibility on the world stage and with their own people, which it had been sorely lacking.

Sometimes you win by losing, though its a subtle diplomatic tool that the media here - long addicted to bluster - has no appreciation for.

[ProSense]

69. This

"Obama tried really hard to keep US troops in longer, but couldn't get immunity."

...is fiction.

Obama May Face Tough Decision as Iraqi Leader Signals U.S. Troops Could Stay
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-may-face-tough-decision-as-iraqi-leader-signals-u-s-troops-could-stay-20110512

Iraqi Ambassador: We will request U.S. troop extension “in our own sweet time”
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/25/iraqi_ambassador_we_will_request_us_troop_extension_in_our_own_sweet_time

Iraq says it's asked for 5,000 U.S. trainers, awaits reply
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/11/2449098/iraq-says-its-asked-for-5000-us.html#storylink=cpy


The U.S. tried to negotiate with Iraqis for immunity of any trainers, Iraq rejected the request.

The troops are home, the war is over.

That's good news.

"How would McCain have dealt with the situation? "

Walking tour?
http://thinkprogress.org/default/2007/04/01/11556/mccain-iraq-stroll/

[ProSense]

67. Speaking of McCain

[think]

76. If those meddling kids at wikileaks hadn't shown that damn video we'd still be spreading democracy

there

&feature=related

[EFerrari]

51. It's sort of surprising that this piece doesn't talk about Obama's fondness for JSOC

given how involved they seem to be in making defense "lean".

[MjolnirTime]

62. FDL = Faux Democrat League

[T S Justly]

64. To a leaner more efficient empire! Doesn't look much different, except it costs more. K&R (nt)

[joshcryer]

71. I think if FDL wants to retain credibility they need to support Jill Stein.

And I would defend them if they did it.

[DCBob]

75. This is a major shift in policy from previous administrations.

Obama should get some credit since it is not easy to buck the MIC.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. Trans: We're still going to give loads of money to the MIC but say we're not.