On taking credit
Over at our parent blog, Blackfive, the namesake of that hallowed place writes that our President has been taking credit for end of the Iraq War.
Remember, this is someone who voted against funding for our soldiers in combat in Iraq. Also remember that this plan that has now been executed, i.e. our withdrawal from Iraq, was one negotiated by the previous administration before he ever took office.
But that doesn’t at all keep him from using the event as a campaign ad.
He also promised 36 months ag0 that we’d be out of Iraq within 16 months after he took office.
And, oh, by the way, his Vice President famously announced that the “surge” was a failure before it even began.
So what, exactly, did they have to do with the end of this chapter of our participation in Iraq. And I’m not all that convinced that we won’t be back, like i kind of figured we’d be back on the morning of February 28th, 1991.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
“So what, exactly, did they have to do with the end of this chapter of our participation in Iraq”. Well, the Oneness may have signed some type of an executive order. And, Joe Bite-Me went over there and made it official. Kinda like riding on someone else’s coat tails.
As I posted over at B5, using this event as campaign fodder is ridiculous. Your Biden dates are off a bit however, the Surge began in Jan-Feb 2007.
It’s also instructive to hear GOP candidates try and have this event both ways…as long as both ways discredit Obama. Equally irresponsible.
I don’t read Blackfive often. But seriously folks.
Here’s the bottom line… If and/or when Iraq falls to Iran, et al, who will get credit?
Jonn nailed it with And I’m not all that convinced that we won’t be back, like i kind of figured we’d be back on the morning of February 28th, 1991.
If, and only if, we still have the wherewithal to do ANYTHING.
Color me dense, but why would these fools need any actual involvement when his royal hignhess gets a Nobel Peace prize for being a community agitator? Having given a thought to something, perhaps giving it some thought in the future, or simply proclaiming an idea to be the truth is all that it takes.
I give Obama credit for giving a Hezbollah commander back to Iran via Iraq to face illegal entry charges (max 5 years) instead of transferring him to Guantanamo for the torture and murder of five US Army soldiers in 2007. Guys name is Daqduq and Obama simply let him go rather than send this war criminal to Guantanamo for trial. The WSJ called this a “disgrace.”
@5 – Daqduq is certainly bad news and will just as certainly find himself in the custody of the IRGC after a show trial by the Maliki regime.
But keeping him violates the SOFA. So when determining credit for his eventual release, one has to assume the burden of forming and breaking our agreements.
5# I saw that this morning. He should never have been released. If hostilties had ceased between the US and Iran, then maybe you could justify this, but the fighting with there operatives continues unabated. I don’t know if you saw but after we released two previous Iranian Quds members, they abducted an American Contractor in Baghdad. Since Iran denies sponsorship of these citizens, then they should be kept in our custody until further notice. Ship’em to Guantanamo. 2# “It’s also instructive to hear GOP candidates try and have this event both ways…as long as both ways discredit Obama. Equally irresponsible.” I have to disagree here CI, both viewpoints are accurate. The Success of the Surge discredits Obama on how the war was being conducted. That is neither here nor there. We didn’t elect him to stabilize or win, that was done, he was elected to plot a reasonable course for the future. In that endeavor he failed. The fact is the administartion has had no vision of what the outcome of Iraq should be. It just wanted to conduct one action, withdraw, period. Consideration only was given to domestic political calculations, of how tough/weak the president would look. The SOFA was not and end to itself, I said last week… “First we never needed a formal request from the Iraq Parliament to negotiate for a longer term troop presence. A piece of legislation was not required, something the Iraqi executive(PM Maliki, Sunni parties, US miltary, & Kurdish president) constantly told us. Maliki and the legislature are deadlocked on who should be appointed to head MoD or MoI, a much smaller problem. There was no realistic way a request like that could be steered through that body. It was the insistence of the Obama administartion, that way or no way, that killed this. SOFA was always implied to be superceded by something else, not an end in itself. Iraq’s security forces are really only imperfectly ready to deal with internal threats. Their Army is not equipped or trained to at least contest a foreign Invader. It has no airforce to… Read more »
@Cedo – And I return with disagreement, narratives of the success of the surge aside. Please elaborate your point of “SOFA was always implied to be superceded by something else, not an end in itself”. I never saw that implication,
Further, you neglected to include the subject of immunity for any US Forces remaining in Iraq. The parliamentary wranglings over Ministry positions was part and parcel of any immunity agreement. I see no obstinacy from the Obama Administration regarding this facet.
The bottom line for the campaign rhetoric is that Iranian influence is not something that spawned within the current Administration or the timeline of the drawdown. We have known which Ministry officials are still receiving IRGC pensions and how much, for years.
It’s irresponsible rhetoric. I expect more context and reason from any candidate realistically trying to earn my vote.
8# “Further, you neglected to include the subject of immunity for any US Forces remaining in Iraq.” No this was the excuse used to justify torpedoing and extension.
” The Obama administration made the negiotations even more difficult by choosing the most difficult path to secure immunities for US troops. No one doubted the need to secure immunities, but according to recent McClatchy article citing diplomats in Baghdad, when State Department lawyers presented the president with options for doing so, “Obama chose the most stringent, approval by Iraq’s legislature of a new agreement, citing as precedent that the Iraq parliament had approved the 2008 agreement.” Requiring parliamentary approval set the bar far higher then Iraqis saw as realistic or achievable. It also may have been unnecesary, given the variety of Status of Forces agreements the United States has negotiated with other countries without parliamentary approval. Senor Iraqis, including Maliki himself, countered that a memorandum of understanding granting immunity was all that was required for a continued training mission.”- Weekly Strandard Nov 7, 2011. Kimberly Kagan, Fred Kagan,& Marisa Cochrane Sullivan.
My origional point still stand CI.
@9 – I’m a bit surprised that you would choose a piece by the Kagans to try and make your point. Their assessment that a SOFA extension or alteration not needing CoR approval doesn’t seem to be founded in any sourcing. The training mission as part of the SOFA is already stood up in the form of OSC-I.
That’s not what the punditocracy is carping about, or what the MSM is ignoring; that the current alarms of fear about the shaky Maliki regime and Iranian influence were present when the SOFA was originally agreed upon.
This is a naked, and rather lazy rhetorical attack on the current Administration. It’s easy enough to claim this presidency an illustration of abject mediocracy, if not failure….there really shouldn’t need to be any call to invent fallacies. It’s a bit disingenuous to claim that Obama is taking credit for the previous Administrations game plan without giving credit, while slamming the end state of the previous Administrations game plan….this time ironically, also without giving credit.
11# The Kagans are hardly the only ones, just happened to have it sitting next to at my PC.
#11 As I said above “The administarion put this on autopilot a long time ago. When the Iraqis started to believe that the US might abandoned them, is when the outright exodus for foreign patronage started. That all happened under Obama not Bush”.
@12 – No worries, I try and stay away from polarizing personalities and those who have a professional stake in a certain outcome, when discussing politically controversial issues [though I don’t really think this should fall into that category].
It’s not always possible though.
@13 – I don’t dispute a fair amount of autopilot. But if the SOFA and withdrawal that Obama is ‘taking credit for’ was worth the paper it was written on, then there wouldn’t be this level of hypocrisy coming from certain political circles.
The issue of a permanent presence was settled in 2007. If it wasn’t a dangerous COA then, why is it now?
#14 “It’s not always possible though.” I agree, your politics should not blind your objectivity, but if your pushing a point or advocating one, you can’t remain neutral. In such circumstances, it’s like being in Ireland, you can’t avoid “The Troubles”.
15# “But if the SOFA and withdrawal that Obama is ‘taking credit for’ was worth the paper it was written on, then there wouldn’t be this level of hypocrisy coming from certain political circles.” I’m not saying the SOFA was perfect, in fact it was very a flawed agreement. It was always implied to be superceded by something else by Iraqis and Americans. The floating of the amount of troops thought to be needed, immunity from prosecution, and, the current status of Iraq forces are issues that point to this.
@16 – “I agree, your politics should not blind your objectivity, but if your pushing a point or advocating one, you can’t remain neutral.”
Probably most of the time, but then again, someone’s position, though neutral in it’s origin, will almost invariably be assigned a partisan position by an opposing position.
“It was always implied to be superceded by something else by Iraqis and Americans.”
This is a statement I’ve asked previously for elaboration. Maliki certainly dangled a carrot of a semi-permanent presence initially, but that avenue was soundly closed off long ago. I don’t like to engage in this intellectual exercise, but in this instance I’m left thinking that had the opposition party been in office now, this would be an argument.
And as an aside, I’m not terribly sure what the paltry amount of forces that would be amenable to Iraqi and Americans would even effect post 31 Dec.
#17 “Probably most of the time, but then again, someone’s position, though neutral in it’s origin, will almost invariably be assigned a partisan position by an opposing position.” choosing not to take a side sometimes in effect is taking aside. Look at the reformation in England for a good example.
“This is a statement I’ve asked previously for elaboration.” See above.
“Maliki certainly dangled a carrot of a semi-permanent presence initially, but that avenue was soundly closed off long ago.” by the neglect of the Obama administration.
” I don’t like to engage in this intellectual exercise, but in this instance I’m left thinking that had the opposition party been in office now, this would be an argument.” I’m sympathetic to your argument here but I think your implying more unified partisan positions then currently or had existed. The president had far more leverage and domestic political clout(even amongst the opposition) three years ago then now.
“And as an aside, I’m not terribly sure what the paltry amount of forces that would be amenable to Iraqi and Americans would even effect post 31 Dec.” I think I also mentioned this above too.
@18 – “See above.”
With all respect, there is no above to see. I asked for any sort of elaboration or sourcing for the comment ” It was always implied to be superceded by something else by Iraqis and Americans.”
#19 Well lets start with this. ““And as an aside, I’m not terribly sure what the paltry amount of forces that would be amenable to Iraqi and Americans would even effect post 31 Dec.”.
The rumor hinted and “felt” out was 15-25,000 troops.
1) Thomas Ricks second book is the first time I can recall see that number floating about.
2)That is the ballpark the Iraqis themselves, hinted at, no less then 15,000. You’ll have to google the articles out.
3)That is also the number the US military hinted at, again google the relevent articles.
I imagined a mechanized Division sized force, or equivalent, some Special Operations, Trainers or advisors, and a small USAF air element. That could deter Iran, train Iraqis, protect airspace, and do some limited counterterrorism missions. That would most likely be needed for another decade.
“It was always implied to be superceded by something else by Iraqis and Americans.” Hey CI you can start with that Weekly standard article for starters.