Sassenach wrote:I'm not really sold on the idea that a residual US presence in Iraq would have prevented what happened. Besides which, at the time the agreement was being negotiated nobody had foreseen the collapse of Syria which was about to take place. It's easy to be wise after the event.

Actually, GWB predicted trouble in 2007 if Obama's policies came to be. Of course, they didn't have Obama's name attached--but, what he did was advocated by some in 2007. GWB said it would lead to exactly what we're watching.

I guess if he were not trying to make money off selling a book, I would give Panetta's views a bit more credence. Couldn't have he waited until the president was out of office before he criticized him to make money? Can't say I have a lot of respect for the man.

And Sass makes a good point--would 10,000 have made a significant difference?

freeman3 wrote:I guess if he were not trying to make money off selling a book, I would give Panetta's views a bit more credence. Couldn't have he waited until the president was out of office before he criticized him to make money? Can't say I have a lot of respect for the man.

On the other hand, supposing he genuinely believes the President's positions are dangerous, should he wait 2 1/2 more years?

fate

On the other hand, supposing he genuinely believes the President's positions are dangerous, should he wait 2 1/2 more years?

A honorable man, who was that concerned, would have resigned in protest.


fate

Actually, GWB predicted trouble in 2007 if Obama's policies came to be. Of course, they didn't have Obama's name attached--but, what he did was advocated by some in 2007. GWB said it would lead to exactly what we're watching

.

Many people predicted that Iraq would become a quagmire if invaded..... It did.
Leaving 5,000 10,000 or 130,000 in wouldn't have made a difference.....
Today, in the parts of Iraq still held by the Iraqis federal government, Shia militias are arresting and killing Sunnis in retaliation for the ISIS incursions... Back when the US had over 100,000 troops in place they were doing the same.
So places like Fallujah had to be "taken" from insurgents. Twice... Because it didn't take the first time. Or really the second time. When the US had to retake Fallujah from Sunni militias thousands of US military were involved..In the second battle over 13,000 coalition troops.
If it took over 13,000, plus massive air support to retake one town .... why would having 5,000 or 10,000 troops in Iraq make a difference to the way Iraq evolved after the US left?

And this was the cost: A cost no one in the US was willing to sustain.
First: 48 U.S. Marines, two soldiers, and one Navy corpsman were killed in action, and the wounded in action totaled 412 Marines, 43 U.S. soldiers, and 21 U.S. sailors during the month of April in and around Fallujah during the battle.[3] 1,200+ Iraqis, both civilians and insurgents, were killed during the fighting.[41] Many of the Iraqis killed were buried inside the city's former football stadium, which became known as the Martyrs' Cemetery.
Second: Coalition forces suffered a total of 107 killed and 613 wounded during Operation Phantom Fury. U.S. forces had 54 killed and 425 wounded in the initial attack in November.[7] By 23 December when the operation was officially concluded the casualty number had risen to 95 killed and 560 wounded.[37] British forces had 4 killed and 10 wounded in two separate attacks in the outskirts of Fallujah.[9][10] Iraqi forces suffered 8 killed and 43 wounded[7] Estimates of insurgent casualties are complicated by a lack of official figures. Most estimates places the number of insurgents killed at around 1,200[12] to 1,500,

rickyp wrote:fate

On the other hand, supposing he genuinely believes the President's positions are dangerous, should he wait 2 1/2 more years?

A honorable man, who was that concerned, would have resigned in protest.

Agreed, but he's a Democrat and a Clintonite, so "honorable" is not applicable.

Were liberals as outraged when Bush-era tomes like this were released? I don't recall that.


fate

Actually, GWB predicted trouble in 2007 if Obama's policies came to be. Of course, they didn't have Obama's name attached--but, what he did was advocated by some in 2007. GWB said it would lead to exactly what we're watching

.

So, let's see . . . are you going to deal with what I wrote or change topics?

Many people predicted that Iraq would become a quagmire if invaded.....

First, change topics.

Btw, as you know, I was against invading. It's only a "quagmire" if you stay. I think we need a new model: flatten and leave. If you don't want us to flatten you, don't mess with us.

Leaving 5,000 10,000 or 130,000 in wouldn't have made a difference.....

Prove it.

Today, in the parts of Iraq still held by the Iraqis federal government, Shia militias are arresting and killing Sunnis in retaliation for the ISIS incursions... Back when the US had over 100,000 troops in place they were doing the same.

No source.

So places like Fallujah had to be "taken" from insurgents. Twice... Because it didn't take the first time. Or really the second time. When the US had to retake Fallujah from Sunni militias thousands of US military were involved..In the second battle over 13,000 coalition troops.
If it took over 13,000, plus massive air support to retake one town .... why would having 5,000 or 10,000 troops in Iraq make a difference to the way Iraq evolved after the US left?

Speculation.

And this was the cost: A cost no one in the US was willing to sustain.
First: 48 U.S. Marines, two soldiers, and one Navy corpsman were killed in action, and the wounded in action totaled 412 Marines, 43 U.S. soldiers, and 21 U.S. sailors during the month of April in and around Fallujah during the battle.[3] 1,200+ Iraqis, both civilians and insurgents, were killed during the fighting.[41] Many of the Iraqis killed were buried inside the city's former football stadium, which became known as the Martyrs' Cemetery.
Second: Coalition forces suffered a total of 107 killed and 613 wounded during Operation Phantom Fury. U.S. forces had 54 killed and 425 wounded in the initial attack in November.[7] By 23 December when the operation was officially concluded the casualty number had risen to 95 killed and 560 wounded.[37] British forces had 4 killed and 10 wounded in two separate attacks in the outskirts of Fallujah.[9][10] Iraqi forces suffered 8 killed and 43 wounded[7] Estimates of insurgent casualties are complicated by a lack of official figures. Most estimates places the number of insurgents killed at around 1,200[12] to 1,500,

Irrelevant to whether or not Obama did the right thing. Still, Wikipedia is fascinating, so thanks for sharing.

fate

No source.

Iraq is descending into savage sectarian warfare as government-backed Shia militias kill, torture and hold for ransom any Sunni whom they detain. Isis is notorious for its mass killings of Shia, but retaliation by Shia militiamen means that Iraq is returning to the levels of sectarian slaughter last seen in the Sunni-Shia civil war of 2006-07 when tens of thousands were murdered

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 92838.html

ricky

Leaving 5,000 10,000 or 130,000 in wouldn't have made a difference.....

fate

Prove it.

How many US and coalition troops were in Iraq in 2006 - 2007 Fate?
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf

page 8.

fate

It's only a "quagmire" if you stay

.

And yet you fault Obama for not leaving troops...

.

ricky

Leaving 5,000 10,000 or 130,000 in wouldn't have made a difference.....

fate

Prove it.

How many US and coalition troops were in Iraq in 2006 - 2007 Fate?
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf

page 8.

[/quote]

Ricky, I like your source, but doesn't it disprove your point that 130,000 ish troops wouldn't have made a difference? Your source shows that Iraq was stable with about 140,000 troops. Although it does sound like you are correct that 5k to 10k is not enough.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I guess if he were not trying to make money off selling a book, I would give Panetta's views a bit more credence. Couldn't have he waited until the president was out of office before he criticized him to make money? Can't say I have a lot of respect for the man.

On the other hand, supposing he genuinely believes the President's positions are dangerous, should he wait 2 1/2 more years?

I agree with Fate here. Panetta is responsible to the American public first. He should, indeed needs, to shed light on the dark places.

ray

Your source shows that Iraq was stable with about 140,000 troops

For a few months.
And stability in Iraq in that period isn't a peaceful, secure place. Its a place where ambushes, IEDs and car bombings were less frequent.
Its a place where sectarian violence had been beaten back, but was simmering just below the surface. If it required 130,000 foreign troops active in the field to make this happen, for even a short while the farce of expecting 5 to 10,000 troops to have the same effect is nonsense.
And Panetta's criticism of Obama's reluctance to "try harder" for an arrangement with the Iraq government needs to be examined in that context.
At any rate, was anyone really supporting the endless presence of troops in Iraq other than McCain? It sure seems Panetta wasn't willing to make much of a stand.
Especially since, as the Iraqis government began to make decisions, the US didn't always benefit. Even the oil production contracts didn't go to US firms...

rickyp wrote:fate

No source.

Iraq is descending into savage sectarian warfare as government-backed Shia militias kill, torture and hold for ransom any Sunni whom they detain. Isis is notorious for its mass killings of Shia, but retaliation by Shia militiamen means that Iraq is returning to the levels of sectarian slaughter last seen in the Sunni-Shia civil war of 2006-07 when tens of thousands were murdered

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 92838.html

I read the article. It cites one Shiite, one person from Amnesty International, and a "probable" case of torture.

Maybe.

I think that is a far cry from 2007-07. You have speculation.

fate

Prove it.

How many US and coalition troops were in Iraq in 2006 - 2007 Fate?
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf

page 8.

Um, at the risk of stating the obvious, raw numbers of troops don't prove anything. You've stated a US military presence would not have changed a thing. You have no way of proving that. It's impossible and anyone but you would realize that.

To put it another way, we have the opinions of Panetta, Clinton, and Petraeus versus yours.

Hmm, tough call.

As you know, I've been very critical of Obama's foreign policy on here over the years, so I can hardly be accused of being a cheerleader for him. In this case I honestly don't see any course of action he could have realistically followed which wouldn't have been difficult for him though. In order to ensure that Iraq remained calm it would have needed a much bigger commitment than 10000 troops. Getting an agreement for a much bigger force would have been a hard sell, both domestically and inside Iraq itself. Obama was elected on a clear promise to end US presence in Iraq. Had he reneged on that I'm quite sure that DF would have loudly proclaimed him to be a breaker of his own commitments on here, but more importantly he'd have faced a backlash from the people who voted for him. Politically it would have been very difficult. Inside Iraq it would have been even more difficult because the Americans would have been wanting an exemption from Iraqi criminal justice for their forces, which would have been very difficult to swallow for the Iraqi giovernment, particularly if there was a large occupation force remaining behind. It's a little naive to suggest that these fundamental political obstacles (and they're far from the only issues) could all be resolved if only the White House had been a bit more enthusiastic.

Sassenach wrote:As you know, I've been very critical of Obama's foreign policy on here over the years, so I can hardly be accused of being a cheerleader for him. In this case I honestly don't see any course of action he could have realistically followed which wouldn't have been difficult for him though. In order to ensure that Iraq remained calm it would have needed a much bigger commitment than 10000 troops. Getting an agreement for a much bigger force would have been a hard sell, both domestically and inside Iraq itself. Obama was elected on a clear promise to end US presence in Iraq. Had he reneged on that I'm quite sure that DF would have loudly proclaimed him to be a breaker of his own commitments on here, but more importantly he'd have faced a backlash from the people who voted for him. Politically it would have been very difficult.

No, not in this case. Look, he's a documented liar. One more lie would not mean much. My concern is the way he has turned the Middle East from a manageable campfire to a raging inferno. His tepid responses and vacuum-creating leadership style have contributed greatly to the chaos.

Inside Iraq it would have been even more difficult because the Americans would have been wanting an exemption from Iraqi criminal justice for their forces, which would have been very difficult to swallow for the Iraqi giovernment, particularly if there was a large occupation force remaining behind. It's a little naive to suggest that these fundamental political obstacles (and they're far from the only issues) could all be resolved if only the White House had been a bit more enthusiastic.

Argue with Panetta. He disagrees with you.

My concern is the way he has turned the Middle East from a manageable campfire to a raging inferno.

Hmm.. Realistically, if any one man can be said to have done that it was Bush. He was the man who upset the delicate balance of despotic forces in the region by invading Iraq and you can plausibly draw a direct line of causation from that to the 'Arab Spring' and all of the subsequent carnage that has ensued in its wake. A larger American presence in Iraq, while it might have been desirable, would not have prevented Libya, Egypt and especially Syria from going up in flames.