Posted on Aug 11, 2014
MSgt Electrical Power Production
10.1K
176
101
6
6
0
Deniability seems to be how this administrations deals with situations that don't bode well with their ideas, actions and decisions. I suppose if you fire enough generals you can find one that agrees with you. Then you can blame them for the decision to leave. IMHO! But if this administration is not to blame who is?
Avatar feed
Responses: 18
LCpl Steve Wininger
12
12
0
It is funny that Obama campaigned on a promise to end the Iraq war, even as a senator, he was trying to stop the war. When the last troops were pulled out of Iraq, Obama claimed all responsibility because everything appeared fine at the time.

Fast forward a few years and now it appears that pulling out could have been a mistake. So, in his usual, I will blame Bush style, he blames the Iraqi government for our troops having to leave.

I read several articles yesterday and learned that there is only a half truth to the story being circulated that claims it was the Iraqi government that wanted us out. The administration dropped the ball on negotiations. The Iraqi government was willing to work with the US, but the administration seemed to ignore them. IMHO, the administration did not want to negotiate, thus giving them a future excuse.

The trend of this current administration has always been to blame someone else when things go wrong, and except credit when they go right. And when things go from good to bad, create a diversion, the American people have a short memory.

Lastly, it is easy to deceive many when you fire people that disagree with you, just so you can get someone into a position of authority that will agree, regardless of how crazy the claims are.
(12)
Comment
(0)
SFC Bde Mobility Nco
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
Funny you guys mention military experience. What type of leadership skills and military service did GWB have?
How can you blame 70% of casualties on President Obama? How can you blame the Iraq situation on ONE person? You want to point fingers, at least start at the beginning.
I believe the purpose was for the US to liberate the Iraqi people and they will be happy for democracy and then train them to defend themselves. How long do we need troops over there to train these people to stand up for THEIR country?
We leave, they fail and now its the POTUS fault? Come on man.
(3)
Reply
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
LCpl Steve Wininger
>1 y
SGT Jinger Jarrett Bravo. Very well said!
(3)
Reply
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
LCpl Steve Wininger
>1 y
Thank you. Semper Fi.
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSgt Keith Hebert
MSgt Keith Hebert
>1 y
hit the nail on the the head SGT Jarrett could not have said it better
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
7
7
0
I'm not interested in blaming someone for what they would, should, or could have done to make the current situation come out differently. That is what history books and memoirs are for. However, I am VERY interested in what our leaders plan on doing to address this problem. We find ourselves in a shooting war again people. Those ISIL muldoons are some very bad customers; so radical even Al Qaeda threw them out. Now they have resources and are attacking everyone in the area to establish an Islamic state. Basically, the worst case scenario is playing out.
Regardless of what you think of GWB or BHO, there are some tough decisions ahead and we in the profession of arms may well have to ruck up again. I'll bet both of them would like a mulligan on some of their decision-making. That said, I hope the President gets this one right. This problem has the potential to disrupt the entire region.

Oh yes. On the original premise of "It was not my decision". The most absurd comment possible in this situation. He is the Commander-in-Chief. He can launch nuclear missiles whenever he wants. To say that "oh, well. The pieces are in motion. Nothing I can do about it." Is preposterous. Lest we forget, it was a full TWO YEARS after the election that we pulled out of Iraq. Ample time to figure out what you want to do and implement it. Except he already knew. He'd been saying it for over four years prior to sitting in the Oval Office. He made the decisions he made. He should own them.
(7)
Comment
(0)
MSgt Electrical Power Production
MSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
1SG (Join to see) You make very valid points. Folks better get their head out of the sand. Because you can't just ignore this fanatical group and hope they go away.
(0)
Reply
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
>1 y
Working on an assignment for SGM Academy, I had to read a case study written in 2011 on how the change in strategy in 2007-10 won the war. Having been in Baqubah during the surge, I had a front-row seat. I look forward to hearing the grade in my paper. Let's just say I felt their conclusions in the case study were a bit premature.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Senior It Security Analyst
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
I can understand what you're saying SGM. However, I think the point of asking these questions is to point culpability for bad choices back at the one man in this country that is ultimately responsible for our foreign policy, among other things.

The other piece of this is that we have a president who's entire world view is seen through a political kaleidoscope. His decisions are based solely on power gain and not the general welfare of the citizens of this country.

I believe that what we are seeing is the culmination of 6 years of willful negligence. These things are important for our nation moving forward. Especially if we want to fix the disaster of the last 6 years.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Michael Hasbun
5
5
0
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.
(5)
Comment
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
LTC Paul Labrador
>1 y
Rye.... ;o)
(2)
Reply
(0)
MSgt Keith Hebert
MSgt Keith Hebert
>1 y
the same way you blame a ceo for company losing profits.
The POTUS is the man in charge and everything(that means everything) is on his shoulders.
when accept the job you accept the respnsibilities
(0)
Reply
(0)
SCPO Intelligence Specialist
SCPO (Join to see)
>1 y
The Iraqis were indeed willing to extend the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA)/SOFA - as long as all US military personnel were subject to Iraqi courts. The previous Administration balked (correctly, IMO) at that position and therefore signed an agreement that only went through 2011. The current Administration had no more success than the previous one on getting the Iraqis to budge. This time the Iraqis were not willing to extend the troop presence so it was either their way (US military personnel subject to Iraqi courts) or leave the country. And those of here would have done what?
(0)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
>1 y
I agree MSgt Keith Hebert, but that means one is responsible for rooting out and solving the problems. Unlike the NFL and the VA, IMHO, you can't go straight to the top banana and demand their immediate resignation as it's not going to immediately solve the problem - may make a lot of people feel good though.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close