Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
Any missteps the Democratic administration has made in the pursuit of national defense pale in comparison to the epic failure of Iraq.

Libya, Syria, and Iraq II might want to haev a word with you.
However, its irrelevant, both HRC and the Republicans have the same foreign policy plan. WAR.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-campaign-chief-ducks-questions-about-214020365.html

A lawyer for Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s chief campaign aide, acknowledged Tuesday evening that the longtime GOP operative has been questioned by officials from the Cayman Islands in connection with a $26.2 million investment by a billionaire Russian oligarch who was his partner in an ill-fated telecommunications development in Ukraine. The lawyer’s comments came in response to an earlier story by Yahoo News about the Cayman officials’ efforts to track down Manafort for his testimony.

The dispute goes back years, but last summer, court-appointed liquidators from the Cayman Islands initiated legal action in federal court in Alexandria, Va., seeking to question under oath Manafort and two business partners about a business deal involving firms controlled by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate who for years was barred from entering the United States over allegations of ties to organized crime.

Neat.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Any missteps the Democratic administration has made in the pursuit of national defense pale in comparison to the epic failure of Iraq.

Libya, Syria, and Iraq II might want to haev a word with you.
However, its irrelevant, both HRC and the Republicans have the same foreign policy plan. WAR.

I concede the second point, anyway. And Clinton is probably the biggest hawk still running.

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, Obama got elected on Iraq withdrawal and got reelected. We shouldn't be too surprised that he did what he said he was going to do.

I've been talking mostly about the decision by the prior administration to go in in the first place, which is the original sin here, as opposed to Obama's fulfillment of his campaign promise to withdraw.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I know you are pokung fun, d-usa,but you might want to stick a in there.

Ugh...my sarcasm detector is busted.

I was trying to build on Ouze's statement that the administration, and the Democrstic Party in general, did a horrible job informing the public of what was going on. We had the same discussion here many times. A lot of folks think Obama decided "I'm done with Iraq, no more troops or security forces for you" and then pulled out everybody. The majority are likely unaware that we tried very hard to negotiate an agreement where we keep troops or bases as a security force to help keep things stable and to help with keeping a foothold in the area, and that Iraq told us to shove it and kicked us out completely.

There are plenty of missteps by Obama, but they did not control the message at all in that regard.

There is an amazingly large amount of the US population that seems to have forgotten we were just in Iraq.

 Frazzled wrote:
There is an amazingly large amount of the US population that seems to have forgotten we were just in Iraq.

Or even realize that we never really left!

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, Obama got elected on Iraq withdrawal and got reelected. We shouldn't be too surprised that he did what he said he was going to do.

I've been talking mostly about the decision by the prior administration to go in in the first place, which is the original sin here, as opposed to Obama's fulfillment of his campaign promise to withdraw.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I know you are pokung fun, d-usa,but you might want to stick a in there.

Ugh...my sarcasm detector is busted.

I was trying to build on Ouze's statement that the administration, and the Democrstic Party in general, did a horrible job informing the public of what was going on. We had the same discussion here many times. A lot of folks think Obama decided "I'm done with Iraq, no more troops or security forces for you" and then pulled out everybody. The majority are likely unaware that we tried very hard to negotiate an agreement where we keep troops or bases as a security force to help keep things stable and to help with keeping a foothold in the area, and that Iraq told us to shove it and kicked us out completely.

There are plenty of missteps by Obama, but they did not control the message at all in that regard.

This... 1000x. (although, I'll add the US being "shoved" out is mischaracterizing the situation... )

There's a very definite argument that Obama was partially elected to disengage from Iraq and that he was doing what he promised on his campaign trial. However, I don't know if it's a "horrible" messaging that explains the current predicament. It appears that he just "cut his loses" with Iraq...which in his mind, that's exactly what he was elected to do.

I guess the criticism, fairly or not, is that being The President also means leadership. Making the right call, even if it goes against your constituents at the time... goes with the territory as being the President. I firmly believe President Obama failed that miserably.

So, back to the messaging failure... what could have they said? "Hey, you voted for me to get out of Iraq"... thus, implying that it's the voter's fault.

Which isn't untrue... it's just that, voters don't like to be scapegoated and now, the administration is painted into the corner. Then the only other strategy is to simply not talk about what's going on in Iraq.

If John McCain had been elected in 2008 do you think the USA would still be in Iraq now?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If John McCain had been elected in 2008 do you think the USA would still be in Iraq now?

Yes, and things would be much better Foriegn Policy-wise.

I fault McCain alot on his domestic policies... but, I trust a hypothetical McCain Adminstation waaaaaaay more than Obama's Administration.

So he would have told Iraq "feth off, we are going to occupy you now" instead of pulling out?

 d-usa wrote:
So he would have told Iraq "feth off, we are going to occupy you now" instead of pulling out?

That would of course never had led to violence or instability in the region

Yes, more than now.

Would it be more peaceful? Good question.
Would the US still be taking daily casualties? The more important question.

We should look at Afghanistan, were the administration has stretched troop pullback. The Taliban have become resurgent, and suddenly ISIL has appeared there too.

I may be the one conservative who supports Obama on his Iraq strategy, or thinks even this amount is too much.

McCain was all in favor of the Iraq War. I'm not sure what these people have done to gain your trust after supporting such a gargantuan foreign policy blunder.

 jasper76 wrote:
McCain was all in favor of the Iraq War. I'm not sure what these people have done to gain your trust after supporting a foreign policy blunder the likes of which we have not seen in modern times.

They're not Democrats.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If John McCain had been elected in 2008 do you think the USA would still be in Iraq now?

Yes, and things would be much better Foriegn Policy-wise.

I fault McCain alot on his domestic policies... but, I trust a hypothetical McCain Administration waaaaaaay more than Obama's Administration.

Why? He's a "lets bomb/send troops BOOMBOOMBOOM" like the rest. He wanted to get more heavily into Syria and supported the guerillas-some of whom became ISIL. How'd that work out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So he would have told Iraq "feth off, we are going to occupy you now" instead of pulling out?

That would of course never had led to violence or instability in the region

Please point to a time other than during the Ottoman Empire, when the region was stable and nonviolent-and even then?

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If John McCain had been elected in 2008 do you think the USA would still be in Iraq now?

Yes, and things would be much better Foriegn Policy-wise.

I fault McCain alot on his domestic policies... but, I trust a hypothetical McCain Administration waaaaaaay more than Obama's Administration.

Why? He's a "lets bomb/send troops BOOMBOOMBOOM" like the rest. He wanted to get more heavily into Syria and supported the guerillas-some of whom became ISIL. How'd that work out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So he would have told Iraq "feth off, we are going to occupy you now" instead of pulling out?

That would of course never had led to violence or instability in the region

Please point to a time other than during the Ottoman Empire, when the region was stable and nonviolent-and even then?

Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
McCain was all in favor of the Iraq War. I'm not sure what these people have done to gain your trust after supporting a foreign policy blunder the likes of which we have not seen in modern times.

They're not Democrats.

I'm not talking Republican or Democrat. Clinton made the exact same mistake.

There were wiser voices heard at the time. Robert Byrd, especially, but also people like Bernie were there to be heard:

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?

Getting in 400 pages late...First choice was Christy, second was Hilary, and if both failed, I threatened my roommates that I'd vote Trump (they're Sanders supporters).

Voted Hilary yesterday, but in regards to Trump, I honestly believe his view is that "any publicity is good publicity". He's the one in the news. He's the one everybody is paying attention to. Does he believe even half the stuff he's saying? Doubtful. I think he's saying stuff just to get people up in a tizzy. Actually, I'm quite curious how things will turn out if he gets elected. My roommates both plan to leave the country if he's elected (one is from Australia, and she's ready to pack up and go home if this happens, and the other will go with her as they're a couple). I was given an offer to join, but I'd stick around; I want to see if he's got what it takes to be president.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?

The clue is in the name

 feeder wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?

The clue is in the name

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

But I didn't mean, "isn't based in Iraq", but grew from the Syrian civil war.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?

The clue is in the name

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

But I didn't mean, "isn't based in Iraq", but grew from the Syrian civil war.

Ah, I misunderstood, apologies. I believe you are correct.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?

Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.

And we would still be taking casualties daily, no?

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?

Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.

None of this precludes the possibility that something
similar to (or even worse than) the rise of ISIS might have happened if we withdrew from Iraq later down the line.

 jasper76 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?

Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.

None of this precludes the possibility that something
similar (or even worse) might have happened if we withdrew from Iraq later down the line.

The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller. Mawlaki would have been gone from office, and he wouldn't have been able to decapitate the Iraqi military leadership like he did the moment we left. The Iraqi army would have had more time to train, and possibly stiffen their backs (though there is a lot of debate on this amongst the Soldiers who served their).

We could also always point towards the Obama administations refusal to pick a side in the Syrian civil war, giving ISIS the room to grow to a major power. I can't believe that McCain wouldn't have sat on his thumbs there as well.

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?

Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.

How many more dead fellow servicemen would there be?

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?

Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.

How many more dead fellow servicemen would there be?

How many more of us are going to die now going back to clean it up? I'll be there sooner that I would like. A bunch of my coworkers are there right now, fighting a stronger foe than what we left.

 djones520 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


Yes, and with McCain keeping us in Iraq, ISIS never would have happened.

I thought they grew largely out of Syria, not Iraq?

Let me rephrase, they never would have exploded like they did. They would have remained a thorn in the Syrian civil war. Their attack into Iraq, and the subsequent collapse of the Iraqi Army letting them capture a near third of the country almost over night, just wouldn't have happened if we were still there.

None of this precludes the possibility that something
similar (or even worse) might have happened if we withdrew from Iraq later down the line.

The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller. Mawlaki would have been gone from office, and he wouldn't have been able to decapitate the Iraqi military leadership like he did the moment we left. The Iraqi army would have had more time to train, and possibly stiffen their backs (though there is a lot of debate on this amongst the Soldiers who served their).

We could also always point towards the Obama administations refusal to pick a side in the Syrian civil war, giving ISIS the room to grow to a major power. I can't believe that McCain wouldn't have sat on his thumbs there as well.

I just don't agree. I think civil war was inevitable when Hussein's government was crushed, and it was all just a matter of time before it unfolded. So why should.we have put more American lives and limbs on the line to postpone a civil war?

That's been my thinking on the matter, anyways.

The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller.

Why? Its happening right now in Afghanistan.