Even if the Iraqis Asked the U.S. to Leave, President Obama Should Get Credit

[Uncle Joe]

because he listened to the aspirations of the Iraqis, and is thus bringing the realization of Iraqi self determination home along with the U.S troops.

This is strong evidence that Iraq is not a puppet government of the U.S. and I believe in the long run will only serve to strengthen their hand in governing a nation with strong religious and cultural divides.

I highly doubt that if Cheney/Bush were still in power or some other Republican; (with a very few exceptions) that they would've listened to the government of Iraq and done the same, most likely the fighting would have flared back up.

I'm not happy with everything that Obama has done by a long shot, but I don't have any problem with giving him credit for this withdrawal decision whether the government of Iraq asked us to leave or not.

[leftstreet]

1. Then should Bush get credit for going there in the first place?

For listening to the aspirations of the Iraqis?

:shrug:

[Uncle Joe]

2. No because Bush lied to the American People about the cause and need to wage war.

Waging needless war based on lies doesn't merit credit.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Of course, they've been asking us to leave for a long time.

I'm glad to see it happening, though there's still a nagging disappointment it took 2 1/2 years into Obama's presidency to see it done.

Is anything there significantly better today than two years ago?

[malaise]

4. Neo-cons love war - they make money out of war

they want perpetual war

[BOG PERSON]

13. everybody makes money out of war, not just neo-cons

war creates badly needed jobs that hard working americans need .

[Uncle Joe]

15. War takes away from jobs, excessive spending on destruction takes away from

spending on construction.

Our national infrastructure has paid a heavy price, the ability of our government to support a strong social safety net which in turn feeds the overall economy and creates even more jobs also takes a hit.

[quinnox]

5. Iraq is way worse off than it would have been

if the usa had never set foot in the place to begin with. Iraq is no victory, but an example of a dismal failure of imperialism and American arrogance.

[zipplewrath]

6. Technically

There is no "withdrawl decision" with which to credit Obama. This is the Iraqi decision made 3 years ago. The decision with which to credit Obama is in not trying to change that. He can't take alot of public credit for it, but his primary action here was in essence to do nothing to enable a change in the agreement. Basically a "pocket veto" of any attempt to keep troops there longer.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Do you believe Cheney/Bush or the Republican neocons would've obeyed this Iraqi decision

or they would they have found a way to undermine it and stay?

[zipplewrath]

10. I suspect they'd have "bought" it.

Pay someone, or infuse the new government with cash. They could also have incited increased levels of violence to try to establish the "need". But they'd still be there by hook or by crook.

[Uncle Joe]

12. I totally agree. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

7. Had Obama kept troops there over Iraqis' objections, or had he escalated

or continued the war rather than drawing down, who would be blamed? That's right. So yeah, of course he gets credit. There are some who seek to lay blame on him for everything, and yet also seek to strip him of any credit and diminish his role in anything good that comes about. Usually, these are called "Republicans", but sometimes they're Democrats too.

[Hydra]

9. No, he shouldn't

Because he was fighting to keep troops there and gain legal immunity for them.

He has already successfully spun it as his idea and will be taking credit for it, despite the fact that it was never his goal. He doesn't need any more rah rah from those of us who know this.

[Uncle Joe]

11. I hate the phrase

"but there is more than one way to skin a cat."

Think about the proposition to the Iraqi Government; for a minute, immunity for American Troops, in their precarious position and having been freshly invaded what are the chances they could/would accept that?

I would say that stood a snowball's chance in hell of being approved by them and in-spite of what you might think of the Obama Administration; they're not stupid.

I believe this was a brilliant political/policy move, on the one hand, it plays well here with the moderate to conservative voters, because Obama insisted on giving U.S. troops immunity, it will play well with the Iraqis, because he's listening and leaving, it will play well with the liberals, progressives and people that believe we should never have been over there in the first place, because ultimately he is removing U.S. troops from Iraq, whether it's believed to be belated or not.

[BOG PERSON]

14. "About that Iraq withdrawal "

The Obama administration — as it’s telling you itself — was willing to keep troops in Iraq after the 2011 deadline (indeed, they weren’t just willing, but eager). The only reason they aren’t is because the Iraqi Government refused to agree that U.S. soldiers would be immunized if they commit serious crimes, such as gunning down Iraqis without cause . As we know, the U.S. is not and must never be subject to the rule of law when operating on foreign soil (and its government and owners must never be subject to the rule of law in any context). So Obama was willing (even desirous) to keep troops there, but the Iraqis refused to meet his demands (more on that fact from Foreign Policy‘s Josh Rogin).

...

I believe the country has not even gotten close to coming to terms with the magnitude of the national crime that was the attack on Iraq (I think that’s why we’re so eager to find pride and purpose in the ocean of Bad Guy corpses our military generates: tellingly, the only type of event that generates collective national celebrations these days). Needless to say, none of the responsible leaders for that attack have been punished; many continue to serve right this very minute in key positions (such as Vice President and Secretary of State); and (other than scapegoated Judy Miller) none of the media stars and think-tank “scholars” who cheered it on and enabled it have suffered an iota of stigma or loss of credibility. The aggressive war waged on Iraq began by virtue of a huge cloud of deceit and propaganda; perhaps it could end without that.

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/about_that_iraq_withdrawal/singleton/

[Uncle Joe]

16. I refer you to my post#11

re; that immunity.

Furthermore, we don't have U.S. troop immunity deals in Japan or Europe, I don't believe there was any realistic chance the Iraqi Government could or would approve such a deal and I believe the Obama Administration knew it.

[Poll_Blind]

17. Bush set a timeline Obama didn't want to keep. Obama wanted more time, the Iraqis said "No."

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf">Here is a link to the Bush administration's Status of Forces agreement with Iraq, hosted at the Department of State. That document is what the Iraqi parliament ratified. Go in there and search for "2011".

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.

This was a deal under Bush. This was Bush's timeline which was negotiated with the Iraqis. President Obama's administration negotiated up until the very last second to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1082201&mesg_id=1082201">keep troops in Iraq beyond the deadline that Bush's agreement set.

And they failed to do so. But beyond the failure as a binary thing, the actual nature of the failure- that the US wanted immunity from prosecution for crimes- is an abysmal point to stick on, don't you think?

The SOFA itself was a byproduct of the failure of the US government to hold its own troops and military contractors, like Blackwater, accountable for crimes committed.

PB

[YvonneCa]

19. GWB would NEVER have set that...

...deadline/timeline if Dems had not overwhelmingly retaken the Congress in 2006. He was pushed into it by political forces with a different opinion on how the war should/could be ended.

[Poll_Blind]

22. Sorry. Democratic Party didn't force his hand. The Iraqi government did:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/25/56474/us-staying-silent-on-its-view.html">U.S. staying silent on its view of Iraq pact until after vote

The Iraqi government Tuesday achieved a breakthrough on the pact, which calls for American troops to leave Iraq by 2012, by gaining conditional support from Tawafuq, a bloc of Sunni Muslim parties. Tawafuq's condition was that the government holds a nationwide referendum on it next year.

The Bush administration didn't even provide an English version to anyone until after the deal was mostly done- but a raw version which McClatchy translated from Arabic also included the http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/18/56116/unofficial-translation-of-us-iraq.html">December 31, 2011 date- see Article 24.

The Democratic Party obviously put pressure on Bush to end the war, but they certainly didn't set that deadline. You're talking like the only two entities which existed in the situation were the Democratic and Republican parties. The Iraqis had a little say in the matter as well, you know. As I said before, the drafting of the SOFA was in no small part necessitated by our numerous crimes in Iraq and our unwillingness to hold ourselves accountable.

PB

[YvonneCa]

24. We don't agree on...

...this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5033795&mesg_id=5034914

[Uncle Joe]

21. According to the dates of signature

"Bush set the timeline" after Obama was elected to be the next President.

Signed in duplicate in Baghdad on this 17 th day of November, 2008, in the

English and Arabic languages, each text bemg equally authentic.

Do you believe Bush would have worked this deal out, had McCain been elected President?

[Poll_Blind]

23. Your implication begs credibility given that the actual SOFA was negotiated starting between...

...January and June of 2008.

Do you believe Bush would have worked this deal out, had McCain been elected President?

Uh, it sure looks like you're saying that somehow Obama influenced George Bush's foreign policy negotiations with the Iraqi government.

Read your own question. Does the implication in that question make sense to you?

The nonsensical nature of your question aside, I suppose it's necessary to restate the obvious: Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain caused Bush to negotiate this agreement. This agreement was negotiatied with the Iraqi government and the December 31, 2011 deadline was a http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/25/56474/us-staying-silent-on-its-view.html">demand from the Iraqis:

The Iraqi government Tuesday achieved a breakthrough on the pact, which calls for American troops to leave Iraq by 2012, by gaining conditional support from Tawafuq, a bloc of Sunni Muslim parties. Tawafuq's condition was that the government holds a nationwide referendum on it next year.

PB

[Uncle Joe]

25. I'm not suggesting Obama influenced Bush to agree so much

as Bush came to agreement to create an adverse political condition for a President-Elect Obama.

Two U.S. officials, however, said that if it becomes clear that the Bush administration has different interpretations of some key provisions than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's government does, Iraqi lawmakers might balk at approving the pact or delay a vote while seeking clarification. The current United Nations mandate governing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq expires on Dec. 31.

Specialists who follow the Iraq war said they were aware of the differing interpretations. Michael O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution, a center-left research group in Washington, said there are "these areas that are not as clear cut as the Iraqis would like to think." He said the two governments "have agreed to punt together on a number of important issues."

Among the areas of dispute are:

•Iraqi legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops or military contractors who kill Iraqis on operations. The agreement calls for Iraq to prosecute U.S. troops according to court procedures that have yet to be worked out. Those negotiations, administration officials have argued, could take three years, by which time the U.S. will have withdrawn from Iraq under the terms of the agreement. In the interim, U.S. troops will remain under the jurisdiction of America's Uniform Code of Military Justice.


Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/11/25/56474/us-staying-silent-on-its-view.html#ixzz1bjWD51e5

It's the same kind of modus operandi; only in reverse, that Bush the Lesser used when sending military forces into Somalia after Clinton was just elected.

If the Republicans can't pull an "October surprise" to prevent a Democrat from being elected, they foster or a create a November or December complication to hamper any newly elected Democratic President during their term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise

The term came into use shortly after the 1972 presidential election between Republican incumbent Richard Nixon and Democrat George McGovern, when the United States was in the fourth year of negotiations to end the very long and domestically divisive Vietnam War. Twelve days before the election day of November 7, on October 26, 1972, the United States' chief negotiator, the presidential National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, appeared at a press conference held at the White House and announced, "We believe that peace is at hand".<1> Nixon, despite having vowed to end the unpopular war during his presidential election campaign four years earlier, had failed to either cease hostilities or gradually bring about an end to the war. Nixon was nevertheless already widely considered to be assured of an easy reelection victory against McGovern, but Kissinger's "peace is at hand" declaration may have increased Nixon's already high standing with the electorate. In the event, Nixon outpolled McGovern in every state except Massachusetts and achieved a 20 point lead in the nationwide popular vote. The fighting ended in 1973, but soldiers remained in Vietnam until 1975.

[Capitalocracy]

18. Yes, of course he gets credit for that

But I'm sorry, THREE YEARS of senseless war under his watch gives him partial credit at best.

[sad sally]

20. About that withdrawal, sounds like there will be a force ready to return,

close by. Now the dicey part may be if US troops return to fight will immunity kick in? Nah, most likely the US would just use predator drones to bomb whoever they believe needs to be killed.

Some 40,000 US forces will be stationed in the Mideast after Iraqi withdrawal

When SecDef Panetta was in Indonesia recently, he said an estimated 40,000 troops will remain across the Mideast after the withdrawal, including 23,000 in Kuwait. He said, "So we will always have a force that will be present and that will deal with any threats from Iran.” I am certain this will include a sizable USAF air attack segment. Furthermore, two US Navy carrier strike groups (CSG) remain in the Arabian Sea, as doe one Navy-Marine Amphibious Ready Group (ARG). They are led by the USS Bush CSG, USS Stennis CSG and USS Boxer (ARG). (102411)

http://www.talkingproud.us/IraqWithdrawal/IraqWithdrawal.htmlz?du

Yesterday, Sec of War/State Clinton added this which seems to agree with Panetta's remarks:

Clinton said in a series of news show interviews that the U.S. would continue its training mission with Iraq and that it would resemble operations in Colombia and elsewhere. While the U.S. will not have combat troops in Iraq, she said the American presence would remain strong because of its bases in the region.

"Iran would be badly miscalculating if they did not look at the entire region and all of our presence in many countries in the region, both in bases, in training, with NATO allies, like Turkey," she told CNN's "State of the Union."

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" about fears of civil war in Iraq after U.S. troops leave, Clinton said, "Well, let's find out. ... We know that the violence is not going to automatically end."

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111023/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_iran?du

[Better Believe It]

26. President Obama can't stay after Iraq demanded that U.S. troops leave.

What could he do .... have a new escalation (surge) of troops, perhaps a few hundred thousand?

While some Republicans would welcome the American people would be out in the streets in the hundreds of thousands against such a military escalation .... and I bet more than a few soldiers would join such a nti-war demonstrations!

[Uncle Joe]

28. The way I understand it,

the major sticking point to an extension was "immunity for U.S. troops," if that's the case and Obama wanted U.S. troops to remain, they just needed to give that issue up.

I don't believe Obama wanted the troops to remain but having the Iraqis tell him to leave because of the immunity issue made it all the easier from a domestic political and for that matter policy standpoint.

I also believe Bush came to an agreement with the Iraqis in November of 08 after Obama was elected knowing the immunity issue was unresolved, should Obama give up the immunity issue to keep the troops there, the Republicans would use that against him as "not sticking up for the troops" and if Obama didn't give on the issue and pulled out of Iraq, the Republicans would claim as some of them are, that "Obama lost the peace."

[Better Believe It]

31. The U.S. government insists on and is always granted immunity for the troops .... except this time.

[bvar22]

27. I don't CARE who gets the credit.

Get our Troops OUT ASAP.
I don't care WHO, HOW, or WHY.
As soon as we leave, Iraq WILL become a Shiite Puppet State of Iran.
There is NOTHING we can do now to stop that.
Staying longer will do NOTHING to change that.

If people want to Give Obama "credit" and throw a Parade in his Honor
more power to them.
That part is unimportant.
Getting our boys & girls OUT NOW is all that matters to me.


Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Uncle Joe]

29. The only reason I started this thread is

because of another one that stated the immunity issue was the sticking point which provoked the Iraqis to tell us to leave and that's the only reason Obama pulled out.

I agree with you, bvar, we should leave but if we let the Republicans control the frame and not give at least some measure of credit to Obama for pulling the troops out whether the Iraqis asked him to or not while allowing the Republicans to trash him for "losing the peace" the chances of a Republican coming back to power in 2012 will be greatly increased.

[YvonneCa]

30. EXCELLENT point. n/t