Israel: US Asks Iran to Not Sink an American Carrier, “Just Kill Some Troops Instead”

The SOFA ended the possitility of independent combat missions both by stating so and by its limitations on combat troops.

This isn't a game. Iraq wanted us out, because THEIR objectives did not match OUR objectives, and we were opposed to their objectives.

 

Wrong.

 

This is just a misunderstanding.

In 2014, Obama added 1,400 troops to Iraq, bringing the total to 2,900.

Even if those were all combat troops (and many if not all were there for training missions) it would be WAY WAY too few to support independent combat missions according to our military. Beyond that, the US requires that the host country immunize our troops from local legal action in our indepenent operations - which Iraq refused to do as per the Bush SOFA. That is two solid reasons against US combat operations in Iraq during that period. Then, there was the fact that we OPPOSED Maliki's objectives - so the chance that he would give us more free reign in his country was zero.

Under Bush, we had up to 150,000 troops in Iraq. And, the absolute minimum presence for a permanent in-country force capable of independent combat missions is something like 30,000 or more.

 

Well argued.

 

So we don't have 30,000 troops in Iraq now, more like 5000, so using your Obama math, that means we don't really have any troops in Iraq since 5000 is less than 30,000.

Sorry this seems like a desperate attempt to pretend that Obama didn't put US troops back in Iraq, and that they never conducted military missions.

 

You need to reread my post and remember that the SOFA covered combat troops, not total presence.

Iraq still allowed a US training presence, with trainers (who had combat experience) present in various Iraqi military operations.

The SOFA just ended our ability to carry out independent combat operations - through serous reduction in force and Iraqi refusal to provide legal cover. The other issue is our training and support presence.

 

I'm curious then as to when you think combat missions began. It sounds as if you are saying that the US did not conduct combat missions from Iraq until Trump's election. Is that what you are trying to say?

 

You were told the facts which are well known. You refuse to accept them. Sorry but from this point onward I'm not going to keep repeating it to you over and over I will just inform you that you are wrong. Saves time and energy.

 

Combat missions began in 2003 when we conquered Iraq.

Since the final Bush SOFA our actions in Iraq were agreed to be in training and support of the Iraqi military, not independent combat missions.

We assassinated a foreign official visiting the Iraqi government.

The fact that the Iraqi government and its people are reacting negatively to that is what we should expect.

 

The major point is what the SOFA DID address. It ended independent combat missions by the US military.

The only other aspect is how we supported the training and operations of the Iraqi military - leaving us in a position of having little to say about what or how actions would be taken.

We were opposed to the majority of the actions Maliki was taking with his military. Our efforts turned to attempting to add Sunnis to the Iraqi military in hopes of moderating Maliki's direction - which was the commencement of civil war against Sunnis.

 

2003 combat operations are totally irrelevant to...anything we're talking about. Sorry.

So you are saying Soliemani's airport stop was an official visit to a representative of the Iraq government? I admit, I've not heard that before. How did he do that while under UN sanctions? I thought he was under an asset freeze and travel ban?

 

You asked when combat missions started.

Now, you say it's irrelevant.

It's hard to complain about the top Iranian general visiting with Iraqi officials, as they certainly have serious issues to talk about. They were completely open about the diplomatic mission.

If there was a known nefarious and secret coponent to the visit to Iraq, that could be a factor, but the administration has NOT made that connection.

 

Yes I asked when combat missions started...after President Obama put troops back in Iraq. Mentioning Bush and 2003 shows you're just trying to deflect by posting inanity.

And what diplomatic mission? What about the UN sanctions? You've not posted proof for anything you've said.

 

Obama added troops to bring our total to less than 3,000. And, the mission was still limited to support and training.

If you think there is some legal justification for something, YOU need to show it - not me.

 

The mission wasn't limited to support and training. The US engaged in combat operations, including air strikes and ground operations. But I'm still waiting for you to explain this diplomatic mission Soleimani was allegedly part of. What are the details of that?

 

Yes, the US was in combat, but not as an independent force. Our troops were on missions with Iraqi forces to achieve Iraqi objectives.

I don't know what Iran's general was going to talk about with Iraqi officials. But, that is irrelevant.

If you want to read more about that do so. Why are you so interested in me feeding you the news readily available to all?

 

The civil war against the Sunnis never got off the ground. Again the Sofa did not deal with a residual force agreement only with independent military operations. These are not the same things.

 

The civil war against Sunnis went on for several years.

Yes, I've consistantly stated that the SOFA wasn't a residual force agreement. But, the SOFA did preclude independent combat missions by US troops. Plus, it reduced US forces and exposed US troops to Iraqi legal action - both factors our military sees as decisive in determing whether independent combat missions are advisable.

 

The last was still under debate when Obama took over.
The civil war against the Sunnis didn't last for years because ISIS came in and steam rolled everything down to the Shi'a while Biden was still claiming they were nothing to worry about.

 

The SOFA was signed. That covered our independent combat missions and our troop count, leaving the question of what we could do to help missions the Iraqi military wanted to carry out.

Iraq wanted us OUT of Iraq except for a small number of trainers. Their parliament also wanted us out of Iraq.

I have NO idea what you think we "could" have done. Maliki and his militias wanted to go after the Sunni population and that is not what our leadership (both military and political) were interested in AT ALL.

 

It is just possible that we have entered the stage where America will strike back when necessary. Proportionally of course.

 

I do not believe that a tit for tat assassination program is going to make any kind of chage that we could possibly like.

I'm sure some Americans will be thrilled by assassinations like that. But, just this one caused the Iraqi parliament to vote us out of Iraq. And, that would be a significant reduction in our presence in the ME, while allowing increased regional influence by Iran and Russia.

 

The stronger Iran appears to be the easier it is to increase their influence. It is past time for real powers to stop tolerating rogue behavior from the Iranian Mullahs and their totalitarian government.

 

OK so then I was right and you were wrong; the US was engaged in combat operations. Not sure how partnering with the Iraq's or anyone else is a qualifier since we were doing that even before we withdrew in 2011.

As for Soliemani, you are the only one making the claim that he was on a diplomatic mission to Iraq. So I'm waiting for you to source that since apparently you are the single source I've found so far. So what's the evidence that he was on a diplomatic mission?

 

The SOFA was about INDEPENDENT combat operations - which is what I clearly stated.

Before the last Bush SOFA, most of our operations were of OUR design, in furtherance of OUR objectives, led by OUR military. The SOFA ended our rights of independent combat operations. It also reduced our forces to a level below what our military sees as a requirement for such operations. And, it removed legal protections for US troop actions - protections our military sees as a a requirement.

His reason for being in Iraq was to urge reducing the demonstrations against Iran. It now appears those he was to meet with may not have included Iraqi government officials. However, I don't see anything definitive on that outside of early reports.