Obama and Iraq agree on troop withdrawal

[Bishop Hedd]

In what the republicons were hoping would be a massive failure, Obama's trip to Iraq showed up both the Bush administration and the foundering McCain campaign thanks to a mutual agreement between the democratic presidential candidate and Iraq's PM Maliki.

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/396909.html

 

 

Now both Bush and McCain, realizing their foreign policy is basically a dog, have decided to swing over to Obama's side with the bizarre new agey term "Time Horizon", another way of saying our ideas suck so we'll just crib Obama's ideas and go from there. While Obama's trip has pretty much been deemed a success, McCain was in the Queen City yesterday milking the second poorest city in the country for over a cool million.

 

 

Desperation takes hold.

[finknottle]

In what the republicons were hoping would be a massive failure, Obama's trip to Iraq showed up both the Bush administration and the foundering McCain campaign thanks to a mutual agreement between the democratic presidential candidate and Iraq's PM Maliki.

 

And how is this vindication? Why does this astonish you? The Iraqi's wanted us out all along!

 

If Sadr had said at the height of the violence (and of his influence) that they agreed with Obama and wanted an immediate withdrawl of US troops, would that also have been a vindication of His wisdom?

[Chilly]

I've got the feeling McCain and Bush are going to try to undermine Obama's Iraq position in the coming months by announcing a time line for withdraw in conjunction with the Iraqis, and then saying Obama was stupid to support it without talking to the troops on the ground.

[GG]

I've got the feeling McCain and Bush are going to try to undermine Obama's Iraq position in the coming months by announcing a time line for withdraw in conjunction with the Iraqis, and then saying Obama was stupid to support it without talking to the troops on the ground.

 

Not too hard of a prediction, since the UN mandate expires by the end of this year, so something will have to be worked out.

[Kelly the Dog]

I've got the feeling McCain and Bush are going to try to undermine Obama's Iraq position in the coming months by announcing a time line for withdraw in conjunction with the Iraqis, and then saying Obama was stupid to support it without talking to the troops on the ground.

Maliki has much, much more to gain sucking up to Obama than he does Bush and McCain.

[OCinBuffalo]

Maliki has much, much more to gain sucking up to Obama than he does Bush and McCain.

Yeah, but didn't you see the infinite wisdom of the Obama once again? We are supposed to take this article literally, like the ancients once took the Bible(before the Obama came). According to Bishop Hedd here, we are supposed to be thinking that Maliki is simply doing his civic duty and that he hates Bush, Republicans, Capitalism and America, because the Obama told us to.

 

Oh, wait, actually he's not supposed to hate them....if the Obama says its ok, since all ideas originate from the Obama. If the Obama changes its mind next week, then it will be OK to hate them. I should take care, the Obama is probably aware of my blasphemies here and will punish me severely for my sins against the Obama.

 

Seriously, I just don't understand how somebody can be sucked in by this, and even worse, somebody be duped so badly into writing this article. That is, unless they have another agenda than simply reporting the news. But of course, that hasn't happened before....

 

This piece is completely free of any context, and it certainly ignores history. The facts are that Democrats in Congress have been calling for Maliki's removal/stepping down for the entire time he has been in office. Now, suddenly because the Obama and Maliki's goals are temporarily aligned, we are supposed to believe that they have agreed all along? And, if only we had listened to the Obama/Maliki proposal from 18 months ago, which did not include the surge, everything would be better now? Scoff!

 

BS Flag! 15 yard personal stupidity and loss of down on Bishop Hedd.

[Chilly]

Maliki has much, much more to gain sucking up to Obama than he does Bush and McCain.

 

AFAIK, Maliki has the most to gain by getting the troops out of Iraq - its his best chance at getting re-elected, regardless of whether its Bush, McCain, or Obama who does it.

[GG]

AFAIK, Maliki has the most to gain by getting the troops out of Iraq - its his best chance at getting re-elected, regardless of whether its Bush, McCain, or Obama who does it.

 

And a cynic would say it's also his best chance of getting blown up. But, you can never underestimate the drive of a politician.

[Wacka]

And a cynic would say it's also his best chance of getting blown up. But, you can never underestimate the drive of a politician.

 

Will The Obama walk on the Sea of Galilee when he visits?

[Kelly the Dog]

AFAIK, Maliki has the most to gain by getting the troops out of Iraq - its his best chance at getting re-elected, regardless of whether its Bush, McCain, or Obama who does it.

As I said, he has much more to gain for aligning with Obama, for numerous reasons. There are advantages and disadvantages of the Americans leaving in two years, although no one knows what it will really be like, or what will really happen with all the different factions once the Americans leave. Surely, this is a political decision for him, but it's probably a good one for him. That actual translation of the German article was remarkable that they didn't even bring Obama and the 16 months up, Maliki did. Three times.

[Chilly]

As I said, he has much more to gain for aligning with Obama, for numerous reasons. There are advantages and disadvantages of the Americans leaving in two years, although no one knows what it will really be like, or what will really happen with all the different factions once the Americans leave. Surely, this is a political decision for him, but it's probably a good one for him. That actual translation of the German article was remarkable that they didn't even bring Obama and the 16 months up, Maliki did. Three times.

 

Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see how backing Obama is an advantage over getting an agreement with Bush and co about a timetable.

[Kelly the Dog]

Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see how backing Obama is an advantage over getting an agreement with Bush and co about a timetable.

Apparently, you're dense. Because chances are Obama is going to be the next President, and the Iraqis already detest Bush.

[SilverNRed]

AFAIK, Maliki has the most to gain by getting the troops out of Iraq - its his best chance at getting re-elected, regardless of whether its Bush, McCain, or Obama who does it.

Actually, Maliki has the most to gain by saying he wants the troops out and then letting some stay to help with security.

 

Both McCain and Buch have been in favor of troop withdrawals for a long time....but only in response to an increase in stability in the country which is also something Maliki's government has stressed (and continues to stress).

 

Ironically, while Obama and his zombies cheer that his idea for withdrawing troops was well-received, that was only made possible by a troop surge that Obama opposed (and amazingly he continues to insist he was right to do so). So basically Obama was against the change in strategy that even made troop withdrawals an option but demands that he receive credit for the outcome.

[Chilly]

Actually, Maliki has the most to gain by saying he wants the troops out and then letting some stay to help with security.

 

I don't disagree with that being the best long-term strategy, was looking at the short-term reelection for him (which would take a bigger priority than the long-term, I'd presume).

[OCinBuffalo]

AFAIK, Maliki has the most to gain by getting the troops out of Iraq - its his best chance at getting re-elected, regardless of whether its Bush, McCain, or Obama who does it.

This is the most ironic part: you are talking about POLITICS and a re-election campaign in a country that we supposedly should have never brought democracy to because they "simply won't accept it and it will never work"....according to the Obama and his acolytes. Hysterical.

 

Here we are, actually having to consider the political campaign concerns of a man who is accountable to his people, who could be actually voted out of office if he doesn't attend to the majority of his people's views. OMG! The accountability demanded by Democracy, rearing its ugly head in a country that, according to the weak in this country, could never, ever hope to support it. The horror!

 

I can't think of a better demonstration of the Iraqis being truly free than them voicing their views about what they want us to do, and actually have it be driven by political campaign implications. The simple fact is that none of this would be happening if we hadn't gotten rid of the old regime, they are starting to move forward, and we are about to win this war.

 

Maliki actually has to run for and win re-election, which means he has to speak to his people's desires to move forward, and not just on, with their lives and start running their own democratically driven country....And this is supposed to make Bush or America look....Bad? How in the F does that make sense?

 

It staggers the imagination to think that somehow anybody thinks it's a bad thing that democracy is actually working in Iraq. They are free, NOW, to say that they can stand on their own two feet, and that means that we can hopefully get out of there with a clear victory. Victory = 1st Democratic Arab country that will be a clear ally going forward. Free people have the right to self-determination and the right to disagree with our government or anybody else's. I have no idea how any of that is "bad". The only people who stand to lose in this, as they have since the beginning of it, are Russia, France and Germany, since they won't get to sell arms and technology to Saddam any more in trade for oil or cash.

 

And, the far-left, not-JFK Democrats will be on the wrong side of history, once again. And once again, I am sure that we will hear all the excuses and the blaming everybody else, just like the last 14 times.

[Kelly the Dog]

This is the most ironic part: you are talking about POLITICS and a re-election campaign in a country that we supposedly should have never brought democracy to because they "simply won't accept it and it will never work"....according to the Obama and his acolytes. Hysterical.

 

Here we are, actually having to consider the political campaign concerns of a man who is accountable to his people, who could be actually voted out of office if he doesn't attend to the majority of his people's views. OMG! The accountability demanded by Democracy, rearing its ugly head in a country that, according to the weak in this country, could never, ever hope to support it. The horror!

 

I can't think of a better demonstration of the Iraqis being truly free than them voicing their views about what they want us to do, and actually have it be driven by political campaign implications. The simple fact is that none of this would be happening if we hadn't gotten rid of the old regime, they are starting to move forward, and we are about to win this war.

 

Maliki actually has to run for and win re-election, which means he has to speak to his people's desires to move forward, and not just on, with their lives and start running their own democratically driven country....And this is supposed to make Bush or America look....Bad? How in the F does that make sense?

 

It staggers the imagination to think that somehow anybody thinks it's a bad thing that democracy is actually working in Iraq. They are free, NOW, to say that they can stand on their own two feet, and that means that we can hopefully get out of there with a clear victory. Victory = 1st Democratic Arab country that will be a clear ally going forward. Free peoplehave the right to self-determination and the right to disagree with our government or anybody else's. I have no idea how any of that is "bad". The only people who stand to lose in this, as they have since the beginning of it, are Russia, France and Germany, since they won't get to sell arms and technology to Saddam any more in trade for oil or cash.

 

And, the far-left, not-JFK Democrats will be on the wrong side of history, once again. And once again, I am sure that we will hear all the excuses and the blaming everybody else, just like the last 14 times.

1. Maliki was put there by the Bush Administration.

2. The surge was only partially responsible for the relative lack of violence.

a.Surely the 30K extra troops helped tremendously. But there were numerous just as important if not more important elements that happened before, simultaneously, because of, in spite of, or just randomly at the same time that created where we are at now.

b. The Sunnis deciding to go against Al Qaeda was happening before the surge started.

c. Paying 90-100K former insurgents over a million dollars a day not to kill Americans and each other was probably the biggest reason. As soon as that ends, and it has to end, they will very likely go back to causing trouble, and they would be killing Americans if not paid not to.

d. The Brits leaving Basra, and forcing the Iraqis to take more control (which was the Dems/Obama's reasoning) was the turning point for Maliki (which has already gone to his head), but it hasnt been discussed much.

e. Many of the insurgents as well as Sadr just deciding to wait this out because they can was an enormous factor, As well as --

f. Al Qaeda being allowed to retreat and reconstitute in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

The surge element did of course work too. Much better than the Dems and Obama are willing to admit. But the surge taking full credit for all of this and more is just as disingenuous .

 

Obama was dead wrong about what effect the military element of the surge would have on the violence, there is no question about that. But the timetable was not wrong, nor was the idea, nor was forcing the Iraqis to do and assume more, nor was the fact that Al Qaeda is really more of an issue and threat in Afghanistan or Pakistan. He even said todaay of course he is not always going to be right but his overall judgment from before the war until now has been more sound than his opponent. Most Americans would agree.

[GG]

1. Maliki was put there by the Bush Administration.

 

What? Are you serious?

 

2. The surge was only partially responsible for the relative lack of violence.

a.Surely the 30K extra troops helped tremendously. But there were numerous just as important if not more important elements that happened before, simultaneously, because of, in spite of, or just randomly at the same time that created where we are at now.

b. The Sunnis deciding to go against Al Qaeda was happening before the surge started.

c. Paying 90-100K former insurgents over a million dollars a day not to kill Americans and each other was probably the biggest reason. As soon as that ends, and it has to end, they will very likely go back to causing trouble, and they would be killing Americans if not paid not to.

d. The Brits leaving Basra, and forcing the Iraqis to take more control (which was the Dems/Obama's reasoning) was the turning point for Maliki (which has already gone to his head), but it hasnt been discussed much.

e. Many of the insurgents as well as Sadr just deciding to wait this out because they can was an enormous factor, As well as --

f. Al Qaeda being allowed to retreat and reconstitute in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

All of the above had been tried, but failed in the past because of their perceived uselessness when the lights went down & Americans retreated to behind the green zone walls. By first stabilizing Baghdad and then slowly working to the outer provinces the surge had the tonic effect for Iraqis to put greater faith behind the US & central government. No one is going to argue that the surge alone accomplished everything. But just like three critical mistakes in the early stages set the occupation back for years - not being ready for the total collapse of the government structure, failure to over run insurgents in Fallujah and letting Sadr off - the effect of the surge is equally effective in its positive psychological effect on the population to throw their weight behind the Western foreigners rather than AQ & their ilk.

[PTS]

Now both Bush and McCain, realizing their foreign policy is basically a dog, have decided to swing over to Obama's side with the bizarre new agey term "Time Horizon", another way of saying our ideas suck so we'll just crib Obama's ideas and go from there. While Obama's trip has pretty much been deemed a success, McCain was in the Queen City yesterday milking the second poorest city in the country for over a cool million.

 

Desperation takes hold.

Wow, if Iraq is backing it, then we should definitely do it!

 

I feel sorry for you BH. I mean after spending months worshipping every move your savior Obama makes, you'll only be left with a giant kick to the nads on election day when the rest of America (i.e. not the media) votes Republican again and crushes all your Obamatopian dreams goodbye.

 

That being said, enjoy your sure-thing of a victory until 5pm on election day. After that you'll watch in horror as Obama's lead dwindles away completely as working families head to the polls.

[Kelly the Dog]

What? Are you serious?

 

 

 

All of the above had been tried, but failed in the past because of their perceived uselessness when the lights went down & Americans retreated to behind the green zone walls. By first stabilizing Baghdad and then slowly working to the outer provinces the surge had the tonic effect for Iraqis to put greater faith behind the US & central government. No one is going to argue that the surge alone accomplished everything. But just like three critical mistakes in the early stages set the occupation back for years - not being ready for the total collapse of the government structure, failure to over run insurgents in Fallujah and letting Sadr off - the effect of the surge is equally effective in its positive psychological effect on the population to throw their weight behind the Western foreigners rather than AQ & their ilk.

I don't think the three biggest reasons the violence has diminished so greatly had very much to do with the Americans or the military or the surge, outside of the payments. I think Sadr and others laying low and staying out of this for now is a direct result of the surge, and that helps tremendously. But it's still just laying low and deciding against fighting now. I surely don't trust one bit that he or his militias have turned the corner. And they will eventually cause trouble when we leave, whether it is 6, 16, 26, or 106 months, and maybe before we leave.

 

The most important aspect, again came well before the surge. The Sunnis turning against Al Qaeda, which set off a chain reaction of events and environments. But simply because the Americans so grossly misdiagnosed them before and then eventually learned how to deal with them after they had already turned doesn't mean the surge was responsible. They are still IMO planning for the elections and a future war with the Shia, and are simply taking the Americans money and waiting them out. Al Qaeda, which was never as strong as we were led to believe (except for many of the major attacks) and from most everything I have read accounted for about 5-6% of the insurgents, simply decided it wasn't worth it to fight in Iraq anymore if they had to worry about everyone instead of just the Americans.

 

They were invited into Iraq by the war and simply retreated when it didn't do them as much good there as it will elsewhere. That didn't defeat Al Qaeda or make America safer, it moved them back to where they were, with a lot easier recruiting strategy and purpose. That again wasn't really attributable to the surge as much as it was to the Sunnis decision, which had little to do with and came before the surge. And paying people not to kill you and others indefinitely is no solution, sorry. It just delays problems it doesn't solve them. They are surely laughing at us.

 

The surge helped with all of that stuff by making the environment easier for it all to happen simultaneously and quicker. And helped in other ways, too, with other small groups. And it helped the local Iraqis a lot. It was only partially responsible for the real change, IMO, from what I have been reading, which is from all different kinds of sources, pro - against US, liberal and conservative, Arab and Western.

[OCinBuffalo]

1. Maliki was put there by the Bush Administration.

Retarded. Kelly you are usually better than this. Been drinking today?

2. The surge was only partially responsible for the relative lack of violence.

a.Surely the 30K extra troops helped tremendously. But there were numerous just as important if not more important elements that happened before, simultaneously, because of, in spite of, or just randomly at the same time that created where we are at now.

b. The Sunnis deciding to go against Al Qaeda was happening before the surge started.

c. Paying 90-100K former insurgents over a million dollars a day not to kill Americans and each other was probably the biggest reason. As soon as that ends, and it has to end, they will very likely go back to causing trouble, and they would be killing Americans if not paid not to.

d. The Brits leaving Basra, and forcing the Iraqis to take more control (which was the Dems/Obama's reasoning) was the turning point for Maliki (which has already gone to his head), but it hasnt been discussed much.

e. Many of the insurgents as well as Sadr just deciding to wait this out because they can was an enormous factor, As well as --

f. Al Qaeda being allowed to retreat and reconstitute in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I agree all of the above are factors. Now, let's try and do this without the "a-f are all equal contributors" distortion. Here's the amount each factor actually contributed:

 

a = 60%

b = 10% and this mostly has to do with a, because they were tired of getting smoked by us

c = wtf? I hardly think business loans = payoffs. If that is true then we better take a long hard look at the Equal Opportunity and Women Owned Business grants/loans in this country. Anyway, 1%

d = 4%

e = 5% and this remains to be seen. I guarantee that if things improve economically, there's no way you see the same level of BS form Sadr, because nobody will care.

f = 10% there might be something to this, but let's also not forget that many, many, many Al Qaeda didn't retreat anywhere. Most were cut off and destroyed.

The surge element did of course work too. Much better than the Dems and Obama are willing to admit. But the surge taking full credit for all of this and more is just as disingenuous .

Sure. The problem is: the other factors are directly CAUSED by the surge and would not have happened or had any effect otherwise. In all cases, it is beyond reasonable(I know that's tough for some here) dispute that the surge worked as designed. It's also beyond dispute that McCain was the first to call for it, and that the Obama was against it and refuses to admit he was wrong about it. Hmmm. Never admitting to a mistake, don't we already have a President who does that?

Obama was dead wrong about what effect the military element of the surge would have on the violence, there is no question about that. But the timetable was not wrong, nor was the idea, nor was forcing the Iraqis to do and assume more, nor was the fact that Al Qaeda is really more of an issue and threat in Afghanistan or Pakistan. He even said todaay of course he is not always going to be right but his overall judgment from before the war until now has been more sound than his opponent. Most Americans would agree.

Apparently you haven't been trained in warfare. Let me help you out. The first rule is: all warfare is deception. Normally you kinda don't want to tell your enemy what your war plans are. See, that way he gets to prepare for them, and that means he knows your next move and can bring fire down on you and your people when you are in the open. It usually isn't the best idea, most of the time it's pretty bad, so let's learn not to do it and move on.

 

So yeah the timetable is, was, and will always be WRONG!. Getting the Iraqis to do more wasn't Obama's idea, it's everybody's friggin idea. Who doesn't want that? I do not believe that the Obama would ever say he might not be right, especially after all the soaring speeches he has given demanding that we accept his omnipotence when it comes to warfare. How could we not with all his extensive training and experience in the art? Hell his demand for a timetable is proof enough of his military genius.

 

Most American's? Hehehee. RCP has him up 4 points. Rassmusen has them tied and Obama is only up 2 points in Michigan right now. Most indeed. I love it when far-left Democrats start saying "most Americans agree", when they should be saying "20% or less of the country agree".