Fallujah falls to Al Qaeda

[Jhhnn]

There was one al Qaeda terrorist (I forget the name) who was recuperating in Iraq after losing a leg when we invaded. That and funding the occasional attack and rewarding suicide bombers' families was about the extent of Saddam's accommodation I think, as Islamic terrorist groups, while having the same enemies as Saddam, also posed a substantial threat to Saddam as a mainly secular dictator if they were allowed to grow too strong in Iraq. Bring in a few leaders for talks or medical treatment, yes. Allow them to establish a base in his country, not a chance.

As far as freeing the Iraqi people of tyranny, we did that. They decided they were strong enough to keep themselves free - although as Nebor alluded, this may have been purely a miscalculation, a bluff to grant themselves an illusion of strength for domestic image while taking more power - so it's now their fight to keep themselves free of tyranny just as every other nation does. Just as it would have been Saddam's fight had he been sufficiently weakened, yet left in power.

IOW, Saddam didn't really accommodate Al Q at all which was your original accusation. Sufficiently weakened Saddam to allow Al Q a place in Iraq? Easy, following the scenario I laid out, above. The creation of a power vacuum in the aftermath of the invasion was a sure way to do it.

Don't act all surprised & innocent, OK? This wasn't like ousting Noriega, propping up the existing govt until elections, then moving out, at all. Neocons objected to the whole structure of Baathist society, so they wiped it away, replaced it with chaos, then left.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sigh. That doesn't change the fact that Obama pursued previously established objectives wrt residual troop strength incompatible with the position left behind by the Bush Admin's commitments.

Which is the whole point of the discussion- not the timetable, but the forces left behind. Surely you recognize the difference.

Link please.

 

[Nebor]

I agree with your evaluation of Iraq and Afghanistan, I just don't think that a President McCain would have kept combat troops in Iraq without immunity. And personally, I don't support keeping ANY troops in an Islamic nation without combat troops. If Obama pulled out non-combat troops in excess of Bush's agreement, I support him completely in that.

You could however be correct; I had not heard anything about intercepted cables indicating their position with Bush was a bluff.

My point is that President McCain (god help us) would have continued to push and negotiate until a new SOFA was in place. He would have played the game that the Iraqis wanted to play, which was to draw out extra concessions in exchange for a SOFA. Obama had strong incentives (campaign promises, perhaps personal convictions) to just leave, so when they gave him the opportunity, he did.

 

[werepossum]

My point is that President McCain (god help us) would have continued to push and negotiate until a new SOFA was in place. He would have played the game that the Iraqis wanted to play, which was to draw out extra concessions in exchange for a SOFA. Obama had strong incentives (campaign promises, perhaps personal convictions) to just leave, so when they gave him the opportunity, he did.

Probably, if there is evidence the Iraqis were bluffing, and assuming he could successfully negotiate a deal palatable to both sides. I don't think that's a given though, since Bush could not and he was more vested in Iraq's success than any successor could be. And it's something of a two-edged sword as the longer we stay, the more Muslims are converted by the radicals.

 

[werepossum]

IOW, Saddam didn't really accommodate Al Q at all which was your original accusation. Sufficiently weakened Saddam to allow Al Q a place in Iraq? Easy, following the scenario I laid out, above. The creation of a power vacuum in the aftermath of the invasion was a sure way to do it.

Don't act all surprised & innocent, OK? This wasn't like ousting Noriega, propping up the existing govt until elections, then moving out, at all. Neocons objected to the whole structure of Baathist society, so they wiped it away, replaced it with chaos, then left.

My original "accusation"? M'kay . . .

Your world must be very easy on the brain, as all moral issues are black and white and can be quickly settled by simply checking for a "D" or "R". However, a brain not used atrophies.

 

[Jhhnn]

Link please.

Yawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

The US thought we could hedge our way out of the agreement signed back on Nov 17, 2008, but the Iraqis wouldn't let us.

Obama? He just fulfilled the obligations of his predecessor and the agreement made in the name of the American People.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yawn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

The US thought we could hedge our way out of the agreement signed back on Nov 17, 2008, but the Iraqis wouldn't let us.

Obama? He just fulfilled the obligations of his predecessor and the agreement made in the name of the American People.

I can't find the part where Obama pursued previously established objectives wrt residual troop strength that were incompatible with the position left behind by the Bush Admin's commitments. Please quote that part.

 

[Jhhnn]

My original "accusation"? M'kay . . .

This one-

Before Saddam was free to make accommodations with al Qaeda (as long as not too many of them came into Iraq at a time) in their mutual interest, punishing the Great Satan (America) and the Little Satan (Israel.)

Or was that just free associative innuendo?

Your world must be very easy on the brain, as all moral issues are black and white and can be quickly settled by simply checking for a "D" or "R". However, a brain not used atrophies.

Vacuity of denial.

 

[Jhhnn]

I can't find the part where Obama pursued previously established objectives wrt residual troop strength that were incompatible with the position left behind by the Bush Admin's commitments. Please quote that part.

OK-

On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, establishing that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believes Iraq is not stable enough.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

OK-

What did Obama pursue regarding troop strength that was incompatible with Bush's previous commitments? Still not seeing it.

Sigh. That doesn't change the fact that Obama pursued previously established objectives wrt residual troop strength incompatible with the position left behind by the Bush Admin's commitments.

Which is the whole point of the discussion- not the timetable, but the forces left behind. Surely you recognize the difference.

 

[Jhhnn]

What did Obama pursue regarding troop strength that was incompatible with Bush's previous commitments? Still not seeing it.

Bush agreed that all American troops would be out by the end of 2011, unless the Iraqis deemed otherwise. The Obama Admin attempted to negotiate the otherwise, but the Iraqis refused.

Here's what Gates offered in between-

When asked by Charlie Rose in a PBS interview how big the American “residual” force would be in Iraq after 2011, Secretary of Defense Gates replied that although the mission would change, “my guess is that you’re looking at perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops”.

That's what the original agreement didn't allow for, and what Obama tried to get. It was like trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine.

Dubya left him the wine.

 

[werepossum]

This one-

Or was that just free associative innuendo?

Vacuity of denial.

You're afraid that I'm using innuendo against one of the worst people in history? Okay . . .

Not an accusation, merely an observation that Saddam sometimes dealt with al Qaeda where it was to his advantage.

If it makes you feel any better, Saddam's elite troops were his Republican Guard, so it's okay for you to not pretend he was a saint betrayed by the evil Professor Bush. He actually used your trigger word for evil for his elite troops.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're afraid that I'm using innuendo against one of the worst people in history? Okay . . .

You do so in an attempt to create a favorable emotional response to you falsehoods.

Not an accusation, merely an observation that Saddam sometimes dealt with al Qaeda where it was to his advantage.

You merely repeat one of the propaganda talking points of the time as if it were true, offer no evidence in support.

If it makes you feel any better, Saddam's elite troops were his Republican Guard, so it's okay for you to not pretend he was a saint betrayed by the evil Professor Bush. He actually used your trigger word for evil for his elite troops.

I offer no defense of Saddam. OTOH, embellishing his sins only serves propaganda purposes. The facts remain.

Al Q was not a significant factor in Iraq prior to the invasion. Obviously, it is now. In that respect, the ouster of the Baathist govt served the Iraqi people poorly.

Obama could have abrogated the inherited 2008 agreement with the Iraqi govt or withdrawn all troops by the end of 2011. He chose the latter. He campaigned on withdrawal from Iraq, and did so in the way his predecessor had ordained.

 

[peonyu]

Iraq was better under Saddam. Same with Libya under Gaddafi, and Syria is better under Assad than it would be under the Jihadist-Rebels. The 3 countries have the same thing in common which is making them utter shitholes to live in: Fundamentalist Islam taking over.

It was obvious even in early 2002 that GWB was a idiot and he thought he could play Caesar and turn Iraq into a booming utopia...That failed, big surprise there. The locals have a hard time tolerating even other types of Muslims, considering that, what made anyone think they would tolerate other religions or gay ppl, or ppl with ideas that dont agree with the Quaran ? The dominant culture is at play there and unfortunately for those that live there, it completely sucks and became outdated centuries ago.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Obama could have abrogated the inherited 2008 agreement with the Iraqi govt or withdrawn all troops by the end of 2011. He chose the latter. He campaigned on withdrawal from Iraq, and did so in the way his predecessor had ordained.

I don't believe Obama could have abrogated that agreement. That was a UN deal.

His two choices were to work for a suitable SOFA or leave. I don't know if the former was even realistic, or if Obama really pushed hard for it.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't believe Obama could have abrogated that agreement. That was a UN deal.

His two choices were to work for a suitable SOFA or leave. I don't know if the former was even realistic, or if Obama really pushed hard for it.

Fern

Like I offered, the Iraqis out maneuvered the Bush Admin way back in 2008, waited for the deal to unfold at the end of 2011. No freaking way they would agree to American troops remaining in their country, and it was their call to make, per that agreement. They all acted real nice at the time, too, just to hustle us on out.

WTF would make anybody believe that the Iraqis might want us to stay is beyond my comprehension.

 

[werepossum]

Like I offered, the Iraqis out maneuvered the Bush Admin way back in 2008, waited for the deal to unfold at the end of 2011. No freaking way they would agree to American troops remaining in their country, and it was their call to make, per that agreement. They all acted real nice at the time, too, just to hustle us on out.

WTF would make anybody believe that the Iraqis might want us to stay is beyond my comprehension.

LOL The Iraqis out-maneuvered the Bush administration by denying us the right to have our soldiers stay and fight the Islamists instead of them? M'kay . . . Let us hope that the Afghanistanis soon similarly "out-maneuver" the Obama Administration.

Throw us in the brier patch, please.

 

[Whiskey16]

If a man was found to be a terrorist, his entire extended family would be killed, the man who sells him bread would be killed, his imam would be killed, etc.

This insanely violent forum member is still present advocating the most extreme terrorism and violence. Nebor's advocating killing meme remains consistent with his posting history:

But like I said, those of us with more than an academic knowledge of you and your kind wouldn't mind if you filmed us while we put your entire extended family in one mass grave, because we know eventually it'll be you or us. We either fight now, alongside Israel, or wait until you convince enough idiots to let you gain the upper hand.

It wasn't a personal threat, it was a broad, general warning to everyone like you: It's just a matter of time until the West wakes up to the subversiveness of your words and actions intended to destroy our society with it's own virtues. When that time comes, it'll be bad news for people like you living among us, advocating for terrorists.

Nebor, a man who claims to represent as a serving member of the US military, but consistently demonstrates to be a well defined enemy of civilisation and of US law.

No doubt, Nebor, with your repeated public display of violence writings you have yourself added as a person of concern to your state's well documented cyber security apparatus.

Now, Nebor, you are truly wrong upon the view of extreme, unforgiving, and wide-reaching violence achieving strategic aims. Time for a little lesson upon counter-insurgency and of attaining victory:

Strategic Studies Institute​

and​

U.S. Army War College Press​

STATE COLLAPSE, INSURGENCY,​

AND COUNTERINSURGENCY:​

LESSONS FROM SOMALIA​

J. Peter Pham​

November 2013
[FONT=PRJRK K+ Baskerville No 2 BT,PRJRK K+ Baskerville No 2 BT][FONT=PRJRK K+ Baskerville No 2 BT,PRJRK K+ Baskerville No 2 BT][/FONT][/FONT]
A Lesson about Legitimacy and the
Limits of Military Force in Counterinsurgency:

Specifically, if the regime fighting an insurgency is unable or unwilling to achieve internal political legitimacy, no outside intervention will be able to help it to "victory," as even a cursory review of the relationship between legitimacy and military force in civil wars will confirm.

It is a principle that, in civil wars, while military force is vital for insurgents—without it, they pose no threat to the state—it is less important to the governments that oppose them. For the latter, while having capable armed forces and the political will to use them is not unimportant, unless the governments achieve legitimacy, their counterinsurgency operations will ultimately fail. As for the sustainability of any peace, it depends less on a government’s military strength than on its ability to convince the population of its legitimacy, deriving just powers from those it proposes to govern and providing them with reasonable opportunities for political, economic, and social development.

Nebor, you fail to offer any solution other than of criminal bloodlust and of perpetuating instability and strife. Your simplicity offers failure. The Russian Caucasus are caustic examples of failures in counter insurgency, perpetuating and extending insurgencies (a bombastic Olympics to come), and of strong-armed authoritarian puppet government setting themselves up for future spectacular combustion.

 

[Whiskey16]

Who has taken over Fallujah?

Who was responsible for 9/11/2001?

Yes, dumb fuck.

Particularly with that biting final line, a truly stunning example of deceitful cognitive dissonance:

UGH! ANGR! MUST POUND SQUARE PEG INTO ROUND HOLE. UGH! UGH!

compuwiz1, let me help you out a bit. The fundamentals are of Fallujans' and Iraqi not ever attacking your country in any relation to the above date. Old news, that.

Next, the crux of the OP is of a Sunni dominated region rebelling against the Shi'ite dominated central government, particularly as the results from years of heavy handedness and non-representation. Multiple militias coalesced and rebelled. Such foreign particulars are not of such concern to those who must spin up and even fabricate in a redirection away from real world happenings all for a tabloid headline of self serving US-centric angst.

'al Qaeda of Iraq' is a title of convenience, and had no presence, consideration, nor thought until months after the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq.. An invasion that occurred years after the date in 2001, that you foolishly offered as cause, compuwiz1.

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL The Iraqis out-maneuvered the Bush administration by denying us the right to have our soldiers stay and fight the Islamists instead of them? M'kay . . . Let us hope that the Afghanistanis soon similarly "out-maneuver" the Obama Administration.

Throw us in the brier patch, please.

We are the reason that radical Islamists even have a chance in Iraq, as Whiskey16 points out. We are the people who oppressed Iraq with over a decade of sanctions. We are the people who blasted their infrastructure all to Hell, including water treatment facilities. We are the people who inflicted an enormous loss of life on their population. We are the people who destroyed their govt & shattered their society.

It's entirely understandable that they might want us gone.

It's also telling that people who rave on about Americans being dependent on the US govt seem to think that it's better for Iraqis to be the same.

Remember when the Neocons said that part of the reason for the invasion was to draw in the terrorists, so that we could fight them over there instead of over here?

Funny how "We" isn't us at all, but rather just the Iraqis. Despite protestations to the contrary, that appears to have been the best that the Neocons could salvage from their adventure, so they took it, way back in Nov 2008.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Bush sucks. Obama sucks. Whoever is next is going to suck.


I will pray to God for our country.

 

[cirrrocco]

It'd take an alien invasion to erase western culture. And I'm not advocating erasing eastern culture, just helping to bring it forward a few hundred years.

islam is not eastern. Islam and Christianity started in the same region.

do you consider Christianity western or eastern? or did you mean you want to erase christianity as well?

 

[TreVader]

Who cares. So glad this is totally irrelevant to anything going on in the US right now. The last thing we need is to send US citizens 11,000 miles into a desert to die, spending a trillion dollars on nothing in the process.




It's funny how there is suddenly all this hate for bush, even from conservatives. 9 times out of 10 these were the same people who voted that idiot into office, twice. Captain hindsights, all of you.

 

[Nebor]

Who cares. So glad this is totally irrelevant to anything going on in the US right now. The last thing we need is to send US citizens 11,000 miles into a desert to die, spending a trillion dollars on nothing in the process.




It's funny how there is suddenly all this hate for bush, even from conservatives. 9 times out of 10 these were the same people who voted that idiot into office, twice. Captain hindsights, all of you.

Oh really?

 

[shortylickens]

Who cares. So glad this is totally irrelevant to anything going on in the US right now. The last thing we need is to send US citizens 11,000 miles into a desert to die, spending a trillion dollars on nothing in the process.

It's funny how there is suddenly all this hate for bush, even from conservatives. 9 times out of 10 these were the same people who voted that idiot into office, twice. Captain hindsights, all of you.

Pretty much this.