Obama is not to blame for events in Syria and Iraq

Obama is to blame. The OP needs to read up on a little recent history of the Obama admin.

 

So you agree with Obama's decision to fund, train and arm al Nusra, al Qaeda and Daesh to attack Assad's Syria along with the consequences that have followed?

President Obama OKs Shipment of Arms to Al-Qaeda in Syria
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...ama-oks-shipment-of-arms-to-al-qaeda-in-syria
... Reuters reported on a secret order signed by President Obama providing support to Syrian rebel forces ... in Syria is Jabhat al-Nusra li ... and fight us. So we

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-backs-rebels-to-fight-al-Qaeda-in-Syria.html
Jan 20, 2014 · US secretly backs rebels to fight al-Qaeda in Syria ... confident and well armed, ... Al-Nusra Front captures Ariha .

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

AP sources: ISIS, al Qaeda joining forces in Syria
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-and-al-qaeda-leaders-reach-accord-in-syria-sources-tell-ap/
Official says ISIS and Nusra Front agreed to work to destroy ... ISIS, al Qaeda joining forces in Syria. ... (ISIS) and al Qaeda gathered at a farm house in ...

Any questions?

 

Aleppo: Obama's legacy of shame....


All decent men and women should condemn the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey. They should also condemn the deliberate mass bombing of Syrian civilians in Syria by troops under the command of Syrian strongman Bashar Assad and Russian strongman Vladimir Putin.

Throughout the years, as the carnage continued in Syria, Obama repeatedly opined about the evils of the killing while repeatedly refusing to take actions that could have ended it.

If Obama has the capacity to admit he was terribly wrong about anything, Stavridis is right and the president will someday look back in shame at the things he refused to do while the bloodshed continued.

In October, Secretary of State John Kerry, known to have long favored a stronger policy toward Syria than Obama, called for an international investigation of Syria and Russia for war crimes committed by Syrian and Russian bombing of civilians, which reportedly included the deliberate bombing of hospitals treating wounded and dying civilians.

Even then, Obama refused to act. Our European allies refused to act. Middle Eastern nations refused to act. The United Nations was incapable of acting. While leaders of nations across the free world spoke loudly but did nothing, the carnage continued unabated.

In his repeated public musings since he first said that Assad must go in 2011, and in repeated background quotes from unnamed White House sources, Obama and his White House staff offered a steady stream of incoherent opining that implied Obama did not want to escalate tensions with Russia or engage in another large-scale war in the Mideast.

Obama's ineffective policy has been to provide deliberately inadequate aid to Syrian rebels — designed to keep them fighting but to make certain they had no chance of winning — while taking no meaningful action to effectively oppose the deliberate mass bombing of civilians by Syrian and Russian forces.

Obama never learned that refusing to effectively oppose the mass bombing of civilians by dictators such as Assad and Putin does not reduce tensions with them; it encourages them and other aggressors to escalate their aggression while the innocent continue to perish.

Appeasement, inaction and incoherence are not badges of honor for a president. They are badges of shame that good people today and historians tomorrow will condemn in horror.....snip~

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/311155-aleppo-obamas-legacy-of-shame

This is whats going down in the History book for BO the peep. Its his legacy to own.

 

Bush didn't walk around thinking that Maliki was the JV team. Or just some uncouth politician. The real truth is.....BO disliked him and didn't want to work with him.

 

There was quite a big reason why he won the Presidency,
the same reason that gives him the difficulties of balancing foreign policies and domestic issues.
He is no Superman but still he manage to handle it well considering that he still did have that second term.
Obama was still empowered by the same voters who put Trump now in that pedestal.

 

Yes there was a residual force agreement to be worked out. Obama didn't bother.

 

Yep, it was the Obama Doctrine.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/29/blame-the-obama-doctrine-for-iraq.html

 

You haven't been listening. Trump's pal, Putin, is responsible for much of the bloodshed in Syria. Tell me something. Why is Obama to blame for Syria's civil war? I've always been confused by that whenever people like you say that. Perhaps you can clarify the issue for me.

 

As is your custom much of what you say is true. Obama was naive. He saw a cruel, ruthless dictator who was killing his own people and he wanted to take him out, but he didn't want direct U.S. involvement. If Obama is to blame for anything, he couldn't understand the motivation of a truly evil man. Then things went down hill and Trump's pal, Putin, got involved.

That said, Obama is not to blame for the events in Syria. Assad is. Putin is. Again, put this into context. What could Obama do? Send troops? Everyone agrees that would have been a serious mistake in 2011 or 2012 when the war broke out. Well, if he couldn't that, what could he do? His critics don't have an answer to that question. They simply blame Obama but never say why.

 

I am not convinced that a negotiation with Russia would have served America's purpose. Syria had been an ally with Russia since 1980. Russia had a naval base in Syria. I don't believe Russia's offer to remove the ruler of Syria was genuine. Russia's offer to negotiate with the U.S. was an attempt to embarrass the U.S. Using the gift of hindsight, it did.

 

Do you really believe that crap?

 

This is what is known as taking a statement out of context. If you have something to say regarding my article as a whole, then say it. Begin by telling me what Obama should have done. Then answer the question at the end of the article.

 

This completely undermines A. the withrawal date of the status of forces agreement signed in 2008, and B. The status of forces offered to keep 10,000 US troops in Iraq beyond the original 2011 removal date. This isn't really something that can be debated, the fact of the matter is the status of forces agreement signed in 2008 established that US troops would leave the country by the end of 2011, and all future offers that the US made to keep US troops in the country longer were rejected by the Iraqi government. I don't mean the Obama administration made no future offers after the status of forces agreement, I mean they formally offered a new status of forces agreement to keep US troops in Iraq beyond 2011, and the Iraqi government rejected it. The original proposal was to keep 10,000 troops, but then it was reduced to 3000. Once it became clear that the Iraqi government was not going to budge on their demands to be able to trial and prosecute US troops, they agreed to keep 3000 military contractors int he country instead.

That's not an opinion, and it's not up for debate. It is the fact of the matter.

and what's this about leaving Baghdad unprotected? it was Mosul that fell, not Baghdad

 

I took absolutely nothing out of context, in fact, I addressed the entirety of the OP. It is arguing that we should not judge him for his lack of foresight now that we know what happened, and instead we should only judge him on his political desire at the time to fulfill a campaign promise.

You tell me that if I have something to say about your "article" then say it, and I already have. The conclusion that we should not judge him for his lack of foresight now that we know what happened, and instead that we should only judge him on his political desire at the time to fulfill a campaign promise is patently ABSURD. In order to make that assertion, it is NOT incumbent upon me to tell you what Obama "should have done" in order to make my point, but since it is such a simple and obvious answer, I will grant your request. HE SHOULD HAVE LEFT A SMALL FIGHTING FORCE IN IRAQ.

The OP is correct in that it does acknowledge that Obama "half heartedly" tried to renegotiate SOFA. Therein lies the major problem. An updated SOFA did not happen, because Obama did not want it to happen. A President of the United States, especially with an almost puppet government put in place by us, that is determined to get a new agreement, can very easily get an agreement. He did not want one, and so it didn't happen. I am glad that the OP did acknowledge at least that much. We can stop with the charade that it didn't happen because he just couldn't make it happen.

I will take it one step further than my original reply, and point out that the OP is dead wrong when it says that the " President is paid to do the people's bidding". The President is NOT paid to do the peoples bidding. That is an unbelievably bastardized interpretation of the presidents job. The President's job is to LEAD. The entire concept behind a representative Republic is to vote in people that we trust to make decisions. The Presidents job is to galvanize public opinion, and if it is in our country's best interest to be involved in a conflict, the President is supposed to do what needs to be done, while galvanizing public support by explaining to them why it is necessary. The notion that a President is supposed to do the peoples bidding is an out and out fabrication. "The people" are not qualified to make military decisions. If the president cannot convince "the people" that his military decisions are sound, they can vote him out next election. That is how our system is designed to operate. A President cannot blame "the people", for his lack of making a proper decision.

The question at the end of the article was "Do we really want any part of that ?"......The answer is yes, we should not have fully left Iraq when we did. The world would be a better and safer place today if we had not.

 

But they didn't even try point me to one real attempt to negotiate reisudal force agreements on the part of Obama. It isn't even remotely arguable that Obama even tried very hard at all. Sorry I said nothing about Baghdad.

 

What I said about Baghdad was in reference to the link provided by MMC.

In regards to where Obama had attempted to negotiate a residual forces agreement.. they literally met with Iraqi officials in June, August, and October of 2011 to establish a new status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government. They first negotiated keeping 10,000 US troops in Iraq, which was too much for the Iraqi government, so they reduced the number down to 3000 to 5000 troops. In the end the Iraqi government refused to allow US troops to stay in their country with legal immunity or to allow US military bases to stay, so they settled on allowing 3000 to 5000 defense contractors to stay in the country instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement#SOFA_Negotiations

Ultimately, the 2008 status of forces agreement established that US troops would leave Iraq by the end of 2008, any residual troop presence would have required establishing a new agreement, which the Iraqi government was not willing to do. Again, this isn't really something that is up for debate, it is the fact of the matter

 

I wasn't talking just about the SOFA and BO had the leverage after Maliki came here to meet with him asking for Helicopters to take on Daesh. BO declined.

Obama and his Team were mocking Maliki, they felt he was beneath them. Yet BO knew about his ties with Iran. Then Maliki warned BO about Daesh/the Sunni. That if nothing was done that they would enter Syria and rip the region apart. Furthermore Maliki had already warned him about the re-emergence of AQ in Iraq.

Btw that link was from 2014. It gets worse moving to the current time.

 

Mostly what you said is correct, but I am also thinking of those “liberals” on both sides, not just the Democratic Senator who responded to the call for a formal declaration of war saying that the first authorization for use of force was “sufficient,” when it never was:

“I am for formal declarations of war…I am for making a stable country where we fight, even if we must keep some of their territory forever.”

The decision to pack up and leave should not be theirs, it was one thing for Iraq, since we should have finished it before 1996, but this is different. If we fight ISIS, we should own some of ISIS land forever. The first troops on the ground after carpet-bombing should just be for securing the ground for the Seabees building a permanent airbase.

 

Are you even remotely aware of how it was Obama who made a big stink
about Assad gassing his own people { which I think was a LIE }.
Assad was getting along with the prior Adm.Just like Gaddafi was.
It was Hillary who used the Arab Spring as her personal springboard to
Inspire and recruit Freedom Fighters in Libya and Syria which turned the entire
region into a virtual tinderbox.
I think Russia is right to Help Assad { who was being framed by Obama and
Kerry }.Obama wanted to pull the same stunt on Assad he did on Gaddafi.
Obama tried that stunt in Egypt with his buddy/Pal { Morsi } and the citizens
of Egypt would not tolerate it.

 

The Mid-East has been an uncontrollable blood bath for centuries. So in that sense, Obama is not at fault.
But, he came to office (with Nobel Peace Prize in hand) claiming our presence there was causing all the trouble. He said he'd get us out. Too bad his World Apology Tour didn't "enlighten" anyone. The blood bath continues.

Before we enter into a conflict, we must have an idea of what the mission is, and what the goal is. Both concepts are apparently too simple for the smartest man in the room to comprehend. Looks like "We came, we saw, he died" wasn't a valid Mid-East policy.

But........ there is a chance when Trump takes office that the Mid-East will spiral out of control. But then again, Trump appears to be the type of man who is quite familiar with goals and seems fairly adept at attaining them. We will soon see.............

 

There was NO Isis { or Isil } let alone DAESH when Obama was handed Baghdad
in 2009 with a very good general { Petraeus } and a secure Baghdad.
Obama did everything he could to stall and not allow the Surge requested by
Petraeus in late summer of 2009.That stall did little to improve a stable Baghdad.
The big change came again when Obama refused to leave behind a residual
force in a Status of Forces Agreement put in place by Predecessor { President Bush }
That agreement recommended at least 15,ooo troops remain behind.20,ooo being
better.Obama,the all present Belligerent one ,Refused.Under Obama the few remaning
troops left behind weren't even troops but mostly advisors.Way less than a 1,ooo.
So when Isis was Created under Obama & Hillary it was a piece of cake to
just rout thru Iraq,stealing and pilfering on their way towards Baghdad.
Isis notoriously stealing over a Billion dollars worth of U.S. Humvees.
Mosul was taken over by Isis and still is not nearly cleared out.
Everything President Bush did to secure and create a better Iraq ,Obama,
The all encompassing Belligerent One ... UNDID.
That's a fact Jack.Know Thy History.
Stop acting like Elmer Fudd.

 

If WE make a red line, and have no other evidence to the contrary, we should mean it. Otherwise, not only does the WMD use claim become suspect as a lie, but the president’s threats become one too. That weakness emboldens any enemy, and in this case drives those that might be on our side into the arms of the Al Quacka (ISIS).

 

Are you ignorant of the fact that terrorists in the San Bernardino and Ohio State were in fact brought in to the US by the Obama Administration?

And how would you really vet someone from Tunisia, Iraq, Syria or Pakistan?

 

Not sure we disagree. And.....as I have lived with Arabian Muslims for two years, I'm fairly familiar with the situation.
Obama came to power claiming he would make things better.........they are worse - Fact!

(It's hard to maintain stability when the pack doesn't have an Alpha Male)

 

You were in Saudi Arabia?