The administration never even tried.
[Update a few minutes later]
Though I’ve noted it in the past, this is worth commenting on again:
He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to “end” the “war in Iraq.” Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.
My emphasis. This is the standard rhetoric of the Democrats, and was very common throughout the war and particularly in the 2006 and 2008 campaigns. Their only solution to wars is to “end” them — we are never allowed to actually win one by the left, or even consider the possibility, and haven’t been since World War II.
I guess we’re left with the tried and true strategy of hoping this doesn’t bite us before Obama can be replaced.
And if Libya is example, apparently it is ok to go to war without an exit strategy. Who knew?
So if Obama had said, “we won, we’re leaving” you’d be okay?
I thought our goals on entering Iraq were:
1) Get rid of Saddam
2) End his WMD program
3) Establish a democracy in Iraq
Since we’ve achieved all of that, why can’t we leave?
The problem is point #3, establish a democracy. If it didn’t matter whether the democracy survived, we could have declared victory back in 2004 and be long gone.
So if Obama had said, “we won, we’re leaving” you’d be okay?
Only if it were true.
I thought our goals on entering Iraq were:
1) Get rid of Saddam
2) End his WMD program
3) Establish a democracy in Iraq
Since we’ve achieved all of that, why can’t we leave?
3) Establish a sustainable democracy in Iraq.
So, then we haven’t won, by your own standard.
Of course not. Because the administration never wanted to win.
This date was agreed to in 2008, before Obama was President. So apparently Bush lost this war – the current Iraqi politicians were elected under his watch and he signed the agreement.
Obama didn’t leave them any choice but to watch us leave. Earlier plans had us keeping a sizeable force there for training and stability, just like we do in Europe, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere.
Let’s hope this goes better than our victory in the Vietnan War, which was finalized in January 1973. What could possibly go wrong, other than overthrow by Sunni tribes, Sunni tribes backed by Syria, Saudi backed Wahabists, Sadrist Shias, Iranians, or a renewed war against Kurds?
It was a target date, contingent on events on the ground. Everyone but the White House thinks that it’s premature (including the Iraqis). Did you even bother to read the linked article?
I read the article and the actual agreement. The agreement says, (Article 24) ”
All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.” It further down says that Iraq has the authority to demand we leave “at anytime.”
In Article 30, it says “This agreement is not to be amended unless by formal written approval of both parties and in accordance with the constitutional procedures in both countries.”
So, since the Iraqi constitution calls for treaties to be ratified by a 2/3rds majority of the Council of Representatives, the only way to legally stay after December 31, 2011 was to draft a new treaty and get it through the Iraqi parliament.
Which would’ve been easy to do, as the immunity agreements aren’t normally formalized in a treaty. The US military wanted to keep a sizeable force going, as a small force does little but protect itself. By insisting on a tiny, token force, Obama made it clear to Iraq that it just wasn’t worth the bother. He’s a very short term thinker, which is why he depends so heavily on a teleprompter.
In contrast, under Bush’s leadership, a captain with Combined Joint Task Force 180 reported that we’d reached an agreement with Qatar to keep forces stationed there until the sun runs out of hydrogen. The plan was to have our soldiers interbreed and make the various positions inheritable, so personnel levels and postings would remain stable for the 4 to 5 billion year deployment.
OK, then Bush lost the war, and Obama acquiesced. Happy now?
Though Iraq wasn’t (and isn’t) really a war. It was a major battle in a much larger war. Which we are currently losing.
Yes, actually. You put the blame where it belongs.
We were in a difficult situation – we either go begging, hat in hand, “please let us stay,” or decide that Iraq wasn’t sovereign after all and ignore our own treaties.
Obama decided not to beg. If the Iraqi government really thought they needed us, a deal would have been cut. They didn’t, and we moved on.
Not sure how any sane rational person could come to the conclusion that we “lost” the war in Iraq. What is the standard that 100% of Iraqis don’t have flying unicorns?
The status of forces agreement negotiated by Bush required us to pull out. It was up to Obama’s discretion whether or not to pursue an extension and how vigorously to do it. Whether we were allowed to stay or asked to honor our commitment and leave, was win/win for Obama but he gains the most from honoring the agreement for us to leave.
Neither Bush’s status of forces agreement nor Obama’s decision to honor it mean that we “lost” the war.
The future of Iraq is uncertain, just like the future for everyone else.
The real test now for the USA is whether or not we continue our support for Iraq and treat them as sovereign ally. Choosing to remain committed to our ally in the long term and especially now when they are struggling will determine how successful the war in Iraq ultimately was. But this really goes beyond Iraq.
If our other allies or countries who’s influence we are wooing don’t think we will honor our commitments or can be counted on when things get dirty, they will be less likely to work with us. Why should Taiwan or Vietnam risk angering China by expanding ties with us when our actions in Iraq foreshadow lack luster effort by the USA to back them in dealing with bullying from China?