Remember this ?

[airdvr 200]

Panetta unloads on White House for pulling US forces out of Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/02/panetta-unloads-on-white-house-over-failure-to-leave-us-forces-in-iraq/

Quote

“But,” he wrote, “the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. … and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.”

When you play politics with your Armed Forces only bad things will happen. And, I'm not desperate to find anyone else to blame. I know W holds much of the blame. But Barry has some as well. He was blinded by politics. Egomaniacs are like that.

Egomania is also known as an obsessive preoccupation with one's self[1] and applies to someone who follows their own ungoverned impulses and is possessed by delusions of personal greatness and feels a lack of appreciation

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[skymiles 3]

Quote

When you play politics with your Armed Forces only bad things will happen.

Unfortunately that happens all the time.

Quote

I know W holds much of the blame.

Thank you for saying so.

I too would have preferred a residual force but perhaps a full withdrawal was necessary to get rid of Maliki.

[grimmie 177]

We have played politics with our armed forces since WWII.

Your memory is pretty short. Most people in America wished for the war to be over and our troops to come home. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/martha-raddatz/obama-wanted-keep-10000-troops-iraq-abcs-raddatz-c/

[billvon 2,467]

> I know W holds much of the blame. But Barry has some as well.

Yes, he does. He hasn't fixed the shit sandwich that Bush handed him as quickly as you would have liked.

"Egomania is also known as an obsessive preoccupation with one's self[1] and applies to someone who follows their own ungoverned impulses and is possessed by delusions of personal greatness and feels a lack of appreciation"

So someone who ignored intelligence based on his own ungoverned impulses, had delusions they were a war hero, invaded a country and failed miserably would surely qualify.

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

Cheney was not talking about circumstances he was talking about the outcome of an invasion. Are there different types of invasions?

If you define invasion of a foreign hostile force across a country's border across all three domains...

1. Land invasion
2. Sea invasion
3. Air invasion

The history books have many examples of all three. I'll leave it to you to do the research.
In the 21st Century...a new one...cyber invasion

And lest we forget...wait for it.

A ZOMBIE INVASION!

[Boomerdog 0]

Well...hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it!?!?!?

Remember that the political strategy that translated to the military response could not exceed the mandates of UN Resolution 242. Further, there was serious concern with US policy makers and military planners that exceeding the UN mandates would break up the coalition arrayed against Iraq.

[kallend 1,673]

Boomerdog

Well...hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it!?!?!?

.

Cheney's "quagmire" statement came BEFORE March 2003.

Bush's statement in the OP cam BEFORE he signed the SOFA.

Some of us are on record as saying the 2003 invasion hype was based on unreliable statements by Bush&Co BEFORE it happened.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

***Well...hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it!?!?!?

.

Cheney's "quagmire" statement came BEFORE March 2003.

Bush's statement in the OP cam BEFORE he signed the SOFA.

Some of us are on record as saying the 2003 invasion hype was based on unreliable statements by Bush&Co BEFORE it happened.

I'll partly agree with you there.

But tell me, which is better, 1) leaving Iraq for political purposes, ignoring your military advisors, or, 2) waiting around a bit taking a political hit for not doing what you said, and thus not having to spend twice as much redeploying troops?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

Facing a re-election challenge, Obama held the drawdown of all troops as the fulfillment of a campaign pledge.

This is via your link. So Obama is smart enough to know we need to leave 10,000 troops to stabilize the area, but decides getting reelected is a better option. Troops leave, area gets worse, now Obama decides to go back into a hotter area with our kids.. Awesome

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

your messiah

Every time you guys say that, you've lost the debate right there. The big L.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Every time you guys address grammar instead of the topic you lose the debate with a big L . Not to mention the terms Feaux News, Republitard, and a host of other amazon key words that make the poster sound like a blood boiling feminist that was just triggered by a man complimenting a hot woman.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Andy9o8 0]

Try to stay on the point of the post you claim to be responding to. Otherwise, you're just like a dog barking at a passing car. Lotsa noise, but doesn't mean much.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

Try to stay on the point of the post you claim to be responding to

I responded to the post YOU made.....

Quote

Every time you guys say that, you've lost the debate right there. The big L.

With this......

Quote

Every time you guys address grammar instead of the topic you lose the debate with a big L . Not to mention the terms Feaux News, Republitard, and a host of other amazon key words that make the poster sound like a blood boiling feminist that was just triggered by a man complimenting a hot woman.

Pretty fucking on point if you ask me. I was responding TO you ABOUT your post.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Andy9o8 0]

I really don't have time to be quibbling over skateboards with Pesky Little Brother on DZ. Lots of guys on here are into that, I'm just not one of them.

[airdvr 200]

Andy9o8

Quote

your messiah

Every time you guys say that, you've lost the debate right there. The big L.

Really? You have to go back almost three pages to find something to counter with?

This is what bugs me about libs. You never admit mistakes. You think you're always right and we know that's not possible. I've agreed that W made mistakes in Iraq. Is it so against your belief in Obama that you can't admit the same?

Sad.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Anvilbrother 0]

OK

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Hjeada 0]

jakee

You're confused about which situation I'm talking about. The logical extension of your remarks about planning is that you should blame Bush for not having any plans in place pre-invasion to deal with a long term post-invasion insurgency. Get it yet?

I'm not confused about anything. Should there have been a contingency plan for an ongoing affair, sure, is Bush at fault for that, absolutely. But acting on a faulty plan once it's known to be faulty is a much larger issue, but in your mind Obama is clean as a whistle, which is just utterly obtuse. Acting on a faulty plan is a significantly bigger mistake than not developing a plan to address all situations.

jakee

And as for Obama, you have yet to answer or even acknowledge my remarks about the legal nature of the Bush SOFA. You make it sound like it was simply an in-house timetable so that the US military could get their logistics in order. In reality it was a bilateral treaty between two nation states. It looks bad for you when you pretend not to notice that.

Looks about as bad as when you put words into others mouths, and make sweeping assumptions. But I will address, negotiations for a new SOFA were happening as late as the fall of 2010 rolling into 2011. There was plenty of opportunity for garnishing a new SOFA. Had the administration not pushed the issue of immunity for US troops, then perhaps a deal could have been struck in order to leave troops on the ground and avoid the instability. Again, you push blame backwards instead of where it is due. Next time you start a new job, please tell your boss that you will follow the plans laid out by your predecessor without owning any accountability and see how well that turns out for you.

jakee

You don't see a problem with invading a middle eastern country and not planning for an Islamic fundamentalist insurgency? That's like performing major surgery and not planning for the possibility of infection. It's like designing an ocean liner and not planning for the possibility of waves.

Would it not be worse to get on ship that wasn't designed for handling waves even if you knew the ship wasn't designed to handle them? You don't see the problem with following an obviously flawed plan, enacting decisions based upon that plan, then blaming the person before you? Did Obama inherit a mess, sure. Did he amplify the situation by making blunders of his own, absolutely. This blanket immunity that you are giving him is ridiculous.

jakee

Then you must be blinded by partisanship, because everything else you had said suggests that is exactly why you should think Bush is a dumb fuck.

I love how you make leaps as to my partisanship, keep reaching, maybe you will get a lucky guess one of these tries...

Dudeist Skydiver #0511

[jakee 1,274]

Boomerdog

In the particular time, circumstances and established objectives of the first Gulf War, Cheney's words were well within the parameters of the political objectives.

Much different set of circumstances after 2001.

Different enough that invading Baghdad didn't create a quagmire? Uhhh, don't think so

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,274]

turtlespeed

I'll partly agree with you there.

But tell me, which is better, 1) leaving Iraq for political purposes, ignoring your military advisors, or, 2) waiting around a bit taking a political hit for not doing what you said, and thus not having to spend twice as much redeploying troops?

2 would definitely be better... If it were a remotely realistic option. Iraq is broken, and you're not going to fix it by hanging around for another few years.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,274]

Hjeada

I'm not confused about anything. Should there have been a contingency plan for an ongoing affair, sure, is Bush at fault for that, absolutely. But acting on a faulty plan once it's known to be faulty is a much larger issue, but in your mind Obama is clean as a whistle, which is just utterly obtuse. Acting on a faulty plan is a significantly bigger mistake than not developing a plan to address all situations.

Wow. I just don't know what to say.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 0]

grimmie

We have played politics with our armed forces since WWII.

Truth be told, domestic politicizing of deployment of the US military has existed pretty much since the founding of the Republic. And the practice of the use of the US Military to project power beyond US borders, including both the deft and the clumsly use of trumped-up pretexts for doing so, have existed certainly no later than the US-Mexico war of annexation in the 1840s. Indeed, I recall reading in one of Ulysses Grant's biographies that although he served in that war as a young officer, he always felt that the US's opportunistic aggression against Mexico was at least partly unjust, as it served the domestic interests of those in upper echelons of public and private power who would not themselves be placed in harm's way (sound familiar?), and the resulting loss of lives on both sides were tragic and could have been avoided.
A bit beyond the scope of your post, but that's me.

[skymiles 3]

turtlespeed

******Well...hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it!?!?!?

.

Cheney's "quagmire" statement came BEFORE March 2003.

Bush's statement in the OP cam BEFORE he signed the SOFA.

Some of us are on record as saying the 2003 invasion hype was based on unreliable statements by Bush&Co BEFORE it happened.

I'll partly agree with you there.

But tell me, which is better, 1) leaving Iraq for political purposes, ignoring your military advisors, or, 2) waiting around a bit taking a political hit for not doing what you said, and thus not having to spend twice as much redeploying troops?

Did politics play a role in Obama's decision to pull all the troops out? Probably and it's a shame if it did. But maybe he was also tired of US troops dying for a failed policy like most of us. Just how many more troops, how many more years, and how many more trillions of dollars would be required? Like I said before, I would have preferred a residual force but then again I ain't volunteering. Nonetheless, Bush made the possibility of a residual force much more difficult by signing SOFA.

Speaking of politics - I believe the decision to invade Iraq was made, in large part, to ensure the re-election of George Bush. WMDs were likely but mostly served as a cover story. However, in order to properly effect the election, the invasion had to start very soon. I say this because Bush withdraw the weapons inspectors before they could finish the job. What was the rush? Because they were getting in the way of a good war that would guarantee the Bush's re-election. Now that's politics if true.

[jakee 1,274]

With all the talk of 'playing' politics it's important to note that the decision to deploy troops is always political. That's how it works. Deciding whether to fight is not a military decision, it's a political decision. The army doesn't choose its wars.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The army doesn't choose its wars.

To a certain extent it does, at least sometimes. Not at the foot soldier level, but top brass most definitely influence, or at least try to influence governments' decisions on whether or not to deploy a force or engage in hostilities. (Also see my oft-repeated commentary on the military-industrial complex - it most definitely does influence policy.) At some point, as often as not, the military decision-making and the political decision-making eventually conjoin.

[wolfriverjoe 1,366]

Boomerdog

Quote

Since we are playing this game. Remember this...Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire

In the particular time, circumstances and established objectives of the first Gulf War, Cheney's words were well within the parameters of the political objectives.

Much different set of circumstances after 2001.

That's very true.

Saddam Hussein hadn't invaded and occupied a neighbor.

He wasn't connected to Al Queda.

He didn't have any WMD, nor was he making them.

Of course, Cheney wanted to generate a lot of business for his contractor buddies, and wanted the oil for his oil buddies.

So they made up a bunch of nasty stories about Hussein to justify the same invasion that he had said was a bad idea 7 years earlier.
He claimed that it would be "sunshine and roses" after the invasion this time, where he had said it would be chaos, anarchy and ungovernable unrest if we had invaded the first time.

He knew the American bloodlust was at a high point and exploited it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo