• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama Simply Pulled The Troops Too Soon

Mike

Well-known member
WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Will he "RE-NIG" (LOL) on his promise to leave Afghanistan soon?


Collapse of Iraqi Army Should Come As No Surprise, U.S. Officials

June 13, 2014

The Iraqi Army Was Crumbling Long Before Its Collapse, U.S. Officials Say

Eric Schmitt and Michael R. Gordon

New York Times

June 13, 2014

WASHINGTON — The stunning collapse of Iraq’s army in a string of cities across the north reflects poor leadership, declining troop morale, broken equipment and a sharp decline in training since the last American advisers left the country in 2011, American military and intelligence officials said Thursday.

Four of Iraq’s 14 army divisions virtually abandoned their posts, stripped off their uniforms and fled when confronted in cities such as Mosul and Tikrit by militant groups, principally fighters aligned with the radical Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, the officials said.

The divisions that collapsed were said to be made up of Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish troops. Other units made up of mainly Shiite troops and stationed closer to Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, were believed to be more loyal to the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, and would most likely put up greater resistance, according to the officials.

Still, Lieut. Gen. John N. Bednarek, who heads the office of security cooperation at the United States Embassy in Baghdad, told a closed hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee that some of the Iraqi soldiers who guarded the Green Zone in the capital had come to work wearing civilian clothes under their military uniform, according to one senator. The implication was that the troops were prepared to strip to civilian attire and flee if they came under heavy attack.

“That was a surprise to everybody, to have four major divisions fold as quickly as they did without even fighting,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a West Virginia Democrat on the committee.

Training the Iraqi Army and other security forces was a seminal mission for United States forces before the last American troops left Iraq in 2011. Despite the expenditure of billions of dollars to defend against the ISIS militancy, that army is failing at a crucial moment.

The United States spent about $25 billion to train and equip Iraq’s security forces and provide installations for these forces from the start of the war until September 2012, according to a report by the special inspector general on Iraq. And Iraq has spent billions of dollars of its own money since then to acquire or order F-16 fighter jets, M-1 battle tanks, Apache helicopter gunships, Hellfire missiles and other weapons.

Although Iraq’s security forces still vastly outnumber the ISIS insurgents — which total 3,000 to 5,000 fighters, the Pentagon estimates — they have been operating with a number of disadvantages, including limited air power, inadequate training and poor leadership.

The rapid gains achieved by ISIS have obscured the fact that it has been making steady inroads in Mosul and other regions for months in a campaign including assassinations and a steady supply of suicide bombers from neighboring Syria.

Even before the fall of Mosul, the Iraqi forces had had logistical difficulties and been battered in their clash with Islamic extremists.

From January through May, six helicopters were shot down and 60 were damaged in battle, an administration official said.

In the same period, 28 M-1 tanks were damaged and five tanks sustained full armor penetration by antitank guided missiles. ISIS, the administration official added, appears to have acquired Russian antitank weapons in Syria. A significant number of M-1 tanks have been hobbled by maintenance issues, the official said.

“They are crumbling,” said James M. Dubik, a retired American lieutenant general who oversaw the training of Iraqi forces during the so-called surge of thousands of United States troops into Iraq in 2007.

“There are pockets of proficiency, but in general, they have been made fragile over the past three to four years, mostly because of the government of Iraq’s policies,” General Dubik said. “They’re losing confidence in themselves and in the government’s ability to win. And the government is losing confidence in them.”

The failure of Iraq’s army and security services to stand up to the Islamist threat also underscores a politicization of the army leadership under Mr. Maliki that has corroded the Iraqi military’s effectiveness at all levels, American officials said.

In one instance a few years ago, a leading Sunni general in northern Iraq whom American officers lauded for his operational skills was ousted and replaced by a Shiite officer. And since the last American forces left Iraq, United States officials said the government in Baghdad had failed to finance and maintain the same training missions.

“This is not about ISIS strength, but the Iraqi security forces’ weakness,” said a former senior American officer who served in Iraq. “Since the U.S. left in 2011, the training and readiness of the Iraqi security forces has plummeted precipitously.”

The retired officer said that the militants’ fast-moving advance south was more a reflection of the lack of resistance by Iraqi forces than the effectiveness of ISIS and its confederates.

“If the cops abandon a city, the criminals are going to run rampant,” the officer said.

The end of the American military presence has also diminished the Iraqi Army’s readiness. The United States has a small office of security cooperation at the American embassy that focuses on facilitating arms sales but also carries out some limited mentoring of Iraqi forces.

But with the withdrawal of American forces in December 2011, American advisers are no longer in the field with Iraqi units and the United States is no longer in a position to influence Mr. Maliki’s choice of commanders.

The way the office of security cooperation is structured and staffed, it “is not capable of doing what’s needed,” General Dubik said.

“If the Iraqis could solve their problems by themselves, they wouldn’t be in the situation they’re in,” he said. “They need sustained help in both the security and policy areas. This means a concerted diplomatic and security advisory mission.”

Senators emerging from the two-hour closed briefing with Pentagon officials and intelligence analysts expressed grave doubts that Mr. Maliki and Iraqi commanders could quickly reverse the lightning gains across the north and west that ISIS and its Islamist allies had achieved in the past few days.

Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, singled out the reports of soldiers’ wearing civilian clothes under their uniforms as a particularly foreboding development. “That’s a bad sign,” he said.
:lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Will he "RE-NIG" (LOL) on his promise to leave Afghanistan soon?


Collapse of Iraqi Army Should Come As No Surprise, U.S. Officials

June 13, 2014

The Iraqi Army Was Crumbling Long Before Its Collapse, U.S. Officials Say

Eric Schmitt and Michael R. Gordon

New York Times

June 13, 2014

WASHINGTON — The stunning collapse of Iraq’s army in a string of cities across the north reflects poor leadership, declining troop morale, broken equipment and a sharp decline in training since the last American advisers left the country in 2011, American military and intelligence officials said Thursday.

Four of Iraq’s 14 army divisions virtually abandoned their posts, stripped off their uniforms and fled when confronted in cities such as Mosul and Tikrit by militant groups, principally fighters aligned with the radical Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, the officials said.

The divisions that collapsed were said to be made up of Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish troops. Other units made up of mainly Shiite troops and stationed closer to Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, were believed to be more loyal to the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, and would most likely put up greater resistance, according to the officials.

Still, Lieut. Gen. John N. Bednarek, who heads the office of security cooperation at the United States Embassy in Baghdad, told a closed hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee that some of the Iraqi soldiers who guarded the Green Zone in the capital had come to work wearing civilian clothes under their military uniform, according to one senator. The implication was that the troops were prepared to strip to civilian attire and flee if they came under heavy attack.

“That was a surprise to everybody, to have four major divisions fold as quickly as they did without even fighting,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a West Virginia Democrat on the committee.

Training the Iraqi Army and other security forces was a seminal mission for United States forces before the last American troops left Iraq in 2011. Despite the expenditure of billions of dollars to defend against the ISIS militancy, that army is failing at a crucial moment.

The United States spent about $25 billion to train and equip Iraq’s security forces and provide installations for these forces from the start of the war until September 2012, according to a report by the special inspector general on Iraq. And Iraq has spent billions of dollars of its own money since then to acquire or order F-16 fighter jets, M-1 battle tanks, Apache helicopter gunships, Hellfire missiles and other weapons.

Although Iraq’s security forces still vastly outnumber the ISIS insurgents — which total 3,000 to 5,000 fighters, the Pentagon estimates — they have been operating with a number of disadvantages, including limited air power, inadequate training and poor leadership.

The rapid gains achieved by ISIS have obscured the fact that it has been making steady inroads in Mosul and other regions for months in a campaign including assassinations and a steady supply of suicide bombers from neighboring Syria.

Even before the fall of Mosul, the Iraqi forces had had logistical difficulties and been battered in their clash with Islamic extremists.

From January through May, six helicopters were shot down and 60 were damaged in battle, an administration official said.

In the same period, 28 M-1 tanks were damaged and five tanks sustained full armor penetration by antitank guided missiles. ISIS, the administration official added, appears to have acquired Russian antitank weapons in Syria. A significant number of M-1 tanks have been hobbled by maintenance issues, the official said.

“They are crumbling,” said James M. Dubik, a retired American lieutenant general who oversaw the training of Iraqi forces during the so-called surge of thousands of United States troops into Iraq in 2007.

“There are pockets of proficiency, but in general, they have been made fragile over the past three to four years, mostly because of the government of Iraq’s policies,” General Dubik said. “They’re losing confidence in themselves and in the government’s ability to win. And the government is losing confidence in them.”

The failure of Iraq’s army and security services to stand up to the Islamist threat also underscores a politicization of the army leadership under Mr. Maliki that has corroded the Iraqi military’s effectiveness at all levels, American officials said.

In one instance a few years ago, a leading Sunni general in northern Iraq whom American officers lauded for his operational skills was ousted and replaced by a Shiite officer. And since the last American forces left Iraq, United States officials said the government in Baghdad had failed to finance and maintain the same training missions.

“This is not about ISIS strength, but the Iraqi security forces’ weakness,” said a former senior American officer who served in Iraq. “Since the U.S. left in 2011, the training and readiness of the Iraqi security forces has plummeted precipitously.”

The retired officer said that the militants’ fast-moving advance south was more a reflection of the lack of resistance by Iraqi forces than the effectiveness of ISIS and its confederates.

“If the cops abandon a city, the criminals are going to run rampant,” the officer said.

The end of the American military presence has also diminished the Iraqi Army’s readiness. The United States has a small office of security cooperation at the American embassy that focuses on facilitating arms sales but also carries out some limited mentoring of Iraqi forces.

But with the withdrawal of American forces in December 2011, American advisers are no longer in the field with Iraqi units and the United States is no longer in a position to influence Mr. Maliki’s choice of commanders.

The way the office of security cooperation is structured and staffed, it “is not capable of doing what’s needed,” General Dubik said.

“If the Iraqis could solve their problems by themselves, they wouldn’t be in the situation they’re in,” he said. “They need sustained help in both the security and policy areas. This means a concerted diplomatic and security advisory mission.”

Senators emerging from the two-hour closed briefing with Pentagon officials and intelligence analysts expressed grave doubts that Mr. Maliki and Iraqi commanders could quickly reverse the lightning gains across the north and west that ISIS and its Islamist allies had achieved in the past few days.

Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, singled out the reports of soldiers’ wearing civilian clothes under their uniforms as a particularly foreboding development. “That’s a bad sign,” he said.
:lol: :lol:


The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

------------------------------
U.S. President George W. Bush hailed the passing of the agreement between the two countries. "The Security Agreement addresses our presence, activities, and withdrawal from Iraq", Bush said. He continued that "two years ago, this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi parliament".

So you think President Obama should have reneged on GW Bush's agreement with the Iraqis to have all troops out by 12/31/2011 ?

No this is one time Obama listened to the majority of the nation- that wanted the troops out of Iraq- and brought them home...
Even someone as dumb as you claim I am- predicted it would break into all out civil war in Iraq--- but people were so upset that we got into the mess in the first place- they wanted us completely out...
And I think the majority (except for a few that follow old BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB EVERYWHERE McCain) think we should stay out and let them go back to their old daily pastime of killing each other...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Obama did what Obama does best, scratched his ass and sniffed his fingernail while the place went to hell in a hand basket. He's not called the Ditherer-in-Chief for nothing.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So you think President Obama should have reneged on GW Bush's agreement with the Iraqis to have all troops out by 12/31/2011 ?

No this is one time Obama listened to the majority of the nation- that wanted the troops out of Iraq- and brought them home...
Even someone as dumb as you claim I am- predicted it would break into all out civil war in Iraq--- but people were so upset that we got into the mess in the first place- they wanted us completely out...
And I think the majority (except for a few that follow old BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB EVERYWHERE McCain) think we should stay out and let them go back to their old daily pastime of killing each other...

Internal Debates

As the process of forming a new Iraqi government dragged on, the Obama administration began in January 2011 to turn its attention to negotiating an agreement that would enable American forces to stay beyond 2011.

The first talks the Americans had were among themselves. Pentagon officials had gotten an earful from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, which were worried that the United States was pulling back from the region. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates favored leaving 16,000 troops to train the Iraqi forces, prepare them to carry out counterterrorism missions, protect Iraqi airspace, tamp down Arab and Kurdish tensions and to maintain American influence.

But the White House, which was wary of big military missions and also looking toward Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, had a lower number in mind. At a meeting on April 29, Thomas E. Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, asked Mr. Gates whether he could accept up to 10,000 troops. Mr. Gates agreed.

Concerned that decisions were being made without careful consideration of all the military factors, Admiral Mullen sent a classified letter to Mr. Donilon that recommended keeping 16,000 troops. “In light of the risks noted above and the opportunities that might emerge, that is my best military advice to the president,” he wrote. He added that the recommendation was supported by Gen. Lloyd Austin, the American commander in Iraq, and Gen. James N. Mattis, head of Central Command, which has responsibility for the Middle East.

Admiral Mullen’s letter arrived with a thud at the White House. An angry Mr. Donilon complained about it in a phone call to Michèle A. Flournoy, the under secretary of defense for policy. But she responded that Admiral Mullen had a professional responsibility to provide his independent advice. She did not see her role as ensuring that only politically acceptable advice was provided to the White House. Mr. Donilon declined to be interviewed, and his spokesman insisted that his discussions with the Pentagon concerned military issues, not politics.

Mr. Obama overruled Admiral Mullen, setting the stage for the negotiations over the troops.

Reelection should have never entered into the discussion when it came to any foreign negotiations. But that is all Obama cared about and that is why foreign policy failures could not have been the reason for Benghazi hence the protest over a video story.
:mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
So you think President Obama should have reneged on GW Bush's agreement with the Iraqis to have all troops out by 12/31/2011 ?

No this is one time Obama listened to the majority of the nation- that wanted the troops out of Iraq- and brought them home...
Even someone as dumb as you claim I am- predicted it would break into all out civil war in Iraq--- but people were so upset that we got into the mess in the first place- they wanted us completely out...
And I think the majority (except for a few that follow old BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB EVERYWHERE McCain) think we should stay out and let them go back to their old daily pastime of killing each other...

Internal Debates

As the process of forming a new Iraqi government dragged on, the Obama administration began in January 2011 to turn its attention to negotiating an agreement that would enable American forces to stay beyond 2011.

The first talks the Americans had were among themselves. Pentagon officials had gotten an earful from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, which were worried that the United States was pulling back from the region. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates favored leaving 16,000 troops to train the Iraqi forces, prepare them to carry out counterterrorism missions, protect Iraqi airspace, tamp down Arab and Kurdish tensions and to maintain American influence.

But the White House, which was wary of big military missions and also looking toward Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, had a lower number in mind. At a meeting on April 29, Thomas E. Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, asked Mr. Gates whether he could accept up to 10,000 troops. Mr. Gates agreed.

Concerned that decisions were being made without careful consideration of all the military factors, Admiral Mullen sent a classified letter to Mr. Donilon that recommended keeping 16,000 troops. “In light of the risks noted above and the opportunities that might emerge, that is my best military advice to the president,” he wrote. He added that the recommendation was supported by Gen. Lloyd Austin, the American commander in Iraq, and Gen. James N. Mattis, head of Central Command, which has responsibility for the Middle East.

Admiral Mullen’s letter arrived with a thud at the White House. An angry Mr. Donilon complained about it in a phone call to Michèle A. Flournoy, the under secretary of defense for policy. But she responded that Admiral Mullen had a professional responsibility to provide his independent advice. She did not see her role as ensuring that only politically acceptable advice was provided to the White House. Mr. Donilon declined to be interviewed, and his spokesman insisted that his discussions with the Pentagon concerned military issues, not politics.

Mr. Obama overruled Admiral Mullen, setting the stage for the negotiations over the troops.

Reelection should have never entered into the discussion when it came to any foreign negotiations. But that is all Obama cared about and that is why foreign policy failures could not have been the reason for Benghazi hence the protest over a video story.
:mad:

Why doesn't Canada send its Bombardier and Skidoo Brigades over there and take care of it for a few years... :???:

US voters/taxpayers are tired of playing policemen of the world and picking up the major military costs and seeing our young folks die for the whims of some old grey haired men in D.C. ... That's one of the major reasons Obama became President-- and old BOMB, BOMB. BOMB the world didn't....

Time for countries like Canada to get off the pot if they want to be involved or don't like how the U.S. is handling it ...

In 2012 the United States spent $682+ Billion which was 4.4% of the US GDP and the most spent by any country of the world... Canada at the same time spent Canada $22+ Billion which was 1.3% of the Canadian GDP and ranked 14th in the world ..
.
In 2013- the US spent $640 Billion which was 36.6 % of the whole worlds budgeting for military costs - and Canada was not even in the top 15...

So I say to all Canadians (and other furriners) that are bitching about us not spending enough warmongering money- or killing enough of our young men-- PUT YOUR MONEY AND YOUR CANNON FODDER KIDS UP FIRST BEFORE YOU BEECH AND MOAN ABOUT WHAT WE/U.S. SHOULD DO !
 

Mike

Well-known member
Face it OT. Tam handed you your ass on the previous statement you made.

You can't win or losing (AND LYING). :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
the " US government" made mistakes from the beginning... because that's what governments do..


our military did their job.. only to have obama, joe clueless biden and hapless Hillary throw it all away..


we should have broken Iraq into nine countries..

anyone could have seen this coming.. the Kurds will not defend the sunnis and shiite

the sunni's will not defend the Kurds and will fight the shiites to death..

and the shiites will not defend the kurds and will fight the sunni to death..

anyone could see this.. without US tending the fences all hell was going to break loose eventually..

I just hope the Kurds are smart enough to stay out of the middle of this one..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Face it OT. Tam handed you your ass on the previous statement you made.

You can't win or losing (AND LYING). :lol: :lol: :lol:

So if folks didn't like what Obama was doing in Iraq by following thru on Bush's agreement to get our troops out - why didn't they elect Mitt instead of Obama...

No- any way you look at it- Americans were sick and tired of nation building in and being in Iraq and wanted OUT- and preferred to let Iraq handle their own problems- whatever happened ...




Personally- it was refreshing to see someone in authority follow thru on a promise about this/a war....
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Face it OT. Tam handed you your ass on the previous statement you made.

You can't win or losing (AND LYING). :lol: :lol: :lol:

So if folks didn't like what Obama was doing in Iraq by following thru on Bush's agreement to get our troops out - why didn't they elect Mitt instead of Obama...

No- any way you look at it- Americans were sick and tired of nation building in and being in Iraq and wanted OUT- and preferred to let Iraq handle their own problems- whatever happened ...




Personally- it was refreshing to see someone in authority follow thru on a promise about this/a war....

Mitt not winning the election had about zero to do with the war in Iraq and almost everything to do with, "what's in it for me". You should know, you're one of them.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
So I say to all Canadians (and other furriners) that are bitching about us not spending enough warmongering money- or killing enough of our young men-- PUT YOUR MONEY AND YOUR CANNON FODDER KIDS UP FIRST BEFORE YOU BEECH AND MOAN ABOUT WHAT WE/U.S. SHOULD DO !


Oldtimer stick it, I have had and do have family members in the US military, and it was a shock to our family to hear one of them was blown up in Afghanistan. Luckily he survived but that still did not change the worry we all went through knowing the pain and mouths of healing he had to go through. What got me is when I was speaking to him right after he was returned to the US for medical treatment he told me he was going back once his health permitted it, and he did. He is state side now and likely will not have to go back to Afghanistan before he is retired but I'm pretty sure if he was asked he would go against his family's wishes, out of honor and duty to his fellow soldiers. So again STICK IT. :x
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Personally- it was refreshing to see someone in authority follow thru on a promise about this/a war....

SO I guess you forgot the fact that Obama only followed through with the Bush withdraw because he could not negotiate a SOFA to leave the troops there. In other words he failed to negotiate a deal that all his military Generals/advisors felt was in the best interest of the US considering the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq 3 years after Obama took office. His Military advisors knew what was going to happen and they warned him a total pull out would leave a mess but it was not in Obama's POLITICAL interest to protect the gains in Iraq as he made a campaign promise, come hell or high water to bring the troops home and HELL is what the Iraqis have now while Obama flies off to yet another DNC fund Raiser and Golf game. :mad:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Face it OT. Tam handed you your ass on the previous statement you made.

You can't win or losing (AND LYING). :lol: :lol: :lol:

So if folks didn't like what Obama was doing in Iraq by following thru on Bush's agreement to get our troops out - why didn't they elect Mitt instead of Obama...

No- any way you look at it- Americans were sick and tired of nation building in and being in Iraq and wanted OUT- and preferred to let Iraq handle their own problems- whatever happened ...




Personally- it was refreshing to see someone in authority follow thru on a promise about this/a war....

Mitt not winning the election had about zero to do with the war in Iraq and almost everything to do with, "what's in it for me". You should know, you're one of them.

Exactly. He is "one of them". Mr. "I stand on my own, I don't take or accept anything from anybody, I'm totally self made". Yup. That statement lasted about 10 seconds until his crop welfare payments were shown.

I don't know which trait of his is worse....his hatred of successful people, or his level of stupidity.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Americans in Iraq may end up being victims of hope and change, like a Benghazi with way more people being in harms way.

http://soopermexican.com/2014/06/14/report-hundreds-of-americans-besieged-by-terrorists-at-air-force-base-in-iraq/
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Be gentle to oldtmer,,, his mind is gone and unless he can blame Bush or the pubs, he curls up in a ball and sucks his thumb,,,,, till he can think of another accusation or lie to tell.
 

Latest posts

Top