Posted on May 9, 2016
BREAKING: Army General Exposes Barack Obama in a BIG WAY After Resigning - The Political Insider
841
13
10
1
1
0
“It’s frustrating to watch it,” Odierno said. “I go back to the work we did in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 and we got it to a place that was really good. Violence was low, the economy was growing, politics looked like it was heading in the right direction.”
He contends that if the United States had left more troops in the region, ISIS would not have been able to capture large portions of that country or neighboring Syria.
“If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have been prevented,” Odierno told Fox News. “I’ve always believed the United States played the role of honest broker between all the groups and when we pulled ourselves out, we lost that role.”
The outgoing Army chief says that he wanted the United States to keep 30,000-35,000 troops in Iraq, but that his recommendation was not followed.
“I think it would have been good for us to stay,” he said.
After Mosul fell to ISIS last year, Odierno says that the White House did not contact him for input, even though he had commanded troops for a longer time there than anyone else.
He contends that if the United States had left more troops in the region, ISIS would not have been able to capture large portions of that country or neighboring Syria.
“If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have been prevented,” Odierno told Fox News. “I’ve always believed the United States played the role of honest broker between all the groups and when we pulled ourselves out, we lost that role.”
The outgoing Army chief says that he wanted the United States to keep 30,000-35,000 troops in Iraq, but that his recommendation was not followed.
“I think it would have been good for us to stay,” he said.
After Mosul fell to ISIS last year, Odierno says that the White House did not contact him for input, even though he had commanded troops for a longer time there than anyone else.
BREAKING: Army General Exposes Barack Obama in a BIG WAY After Resigning - The Political Insider
Posted from thepoliticalinsider.comPosted in these groups: 
GWOT
GWOT
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
Yes sir, I agree with remaining in country with a strong military presence would have prevented ISIS/ISIL Al Queda and a few others from garnering the strength they have. Pulling out was not an option that would lead to any positive results.
A simple look at history would have been the example... Japan. occupied 1945-1952, and we never drew down our military might afterwards. Civilian expansion prospered... Democracy won over the leadership through the use and continued use of the military. The GDP? Isn't Japan the 5th largest in the world now?
South Korea is another prime example. 66 years and we are still there... the civilian response? the 8th largest GDP in the world?
The SOFA draw down was a mistake... brought on by? The DNC leadershi pushing for a peace full withdraw. Bush may have started it... but the DNC continued pushing for it.
We should have stayed... and over time, the introduction of the civilian workforce and American ingenunity would have taken hold.
There was a point in the discussions when DNC leadership balked at the use of force by military and exemption form prosecution. We needed to assure the Iraq government justice would not be blind to the Iraq people, but departing was not an option. Iran quickly took advantage... and the rest to whoever wins, can re-write books. Those who control the past and present, will control the future.
A simple look at history would have been the example... Japan. occupied 1945-1952, and we never drew down our military might afterwards. Civilian expansion prospered... Democracy won over the leadership through the use and continued use of the military. The GDP? Isn't Japan the 5th largest in the world now?
South Korea is another prime example. 66 years and we are still there... the civilian response? the 8th largest GDP in the world?
The SOFA draw down was a mistake... brought on by? The DNC leadershi pushing for a peace full withdraw. Bush may have started it... but the DNC continued pushing for it.
We should have stayed... and over time, the introduction of the civilian workforce and American ingenunity would have taken hold.
There was a point in the discussions when DNC leadership balked at the use of force by military and exemption form prosecution. We needed to assure the Iraq government justice would not be blind to the Iraq people, but departing was not an option. Iran quickly took advantage... and the rest to whoever wins, can re-write books. Those who control the past and present, will control the future.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
To be fair I think this is more of on Bush's SOFA - The SOFA that Bush signed in 2008 established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011. The flag was cased in December 31, 2011. Seems like these recommendations would have been to Bush not Obama. However Obama has certainly helped with the JV ISIS lettering in terrorism. As well he seems to favor the Shia sect - nothing done when line in sand crossed in Syria - Shia, nuke deal with Iran - Shia, coup in Egypt and Libya - almost entirely Sunni countries. However I think most of this is just dumb luck as this would suggest he has crafted a foreign policy for the region.
(1)
(0)
SPC David S.
I will agree that when it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force would stay in country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000 troops, but the White House - Obama -rejected that number. Obama did consider 10,000 troops but nobody wanted that size of force as they would be concentrated in key areas so he nixed that idea and went with some 300 troops instead to train a very feeble police force. However when Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited the plan that President George W. Bush forged and followed that timeline. I think what really served as a catalyst for ISIS is when the Bush administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men - armed, angry, and with military training - were suddenly humiliated and out of work. This was probably the single most catastrophic decision of policy makers in regards to Iraq and the Middle East. The problems in the Middle East, in my view, are party neutral due to a series of missed guided steps in foreign policy by many presidents over the years. Most of which were intended to subdue the Russian influence in the region have circled back around and bit us in the ass. As well we seem to be lacking in a solid exit strategy in our use of force from a Clausewitzean perspective. It seems that we are content with saying we'll deal with whatever happens when it happens as an exit strategy. As far as ISIS - in destabilizing a country not a big shocker that the instability fosters unemployment and civil unrest. What amazes me is that with all the lingering effects in A'Stan and Iraq Obama moved forward with destabilizing Libya and continues to do so with Syria. That logic I have a problem with as this is only creating fuel for the fire in my opinion.
http://www.newsweek.com/understanding-rise-islamic-state-isis-libya-437931
http://www.newsweek.com/understanding-rise-islamic-state-isis-libya-437931
(1)
(0)
SSgt Clare May
Capt Seid Waddell - Agreed. I ...in my opinion, believe the DNC used a "no more war political grandstanding and get our troops home" push that put any SOFA agreement in peril and early removal of all of our troops. The DNC party created the draw down pushing another generation of terrorists to breed.
We won that war... we could have continued a war for an unlimited amount of time... but we lost the battle...for democracy and putting together a stronger Iraq democracy not led by religious fanatics... because?
Poor negotiations... totally piss poor. We bowed to their demands of a "provisional government"... we let the religious nutcases into power, let them use it to their liking and ended up with the shit hole it is now.
We would have had issues maintaining a permanent presence there... but the alternative is ISIS and a nuclear powered Iran. Which one was better... will be written by whoever continues to remain in power.
As long as the DNC remains the political force it is... expect the same results in future generations.
No more wars to end wars... no "Unconditional Surrenders"... as long as the head of that shit hole nation remains at large...with no one willing to sign an unconditional surrender... We will continue to win the big ones and the big picture... but will only loose the battle by shitty leadership influenced by... politicians who never served in the military, do not know what its like to win a individual trophy... because everyone gets a trophy in liberal sports world today... even the worst player in the league.
Strong leadership requires making statements that result in positive action... We do not need leaders who draw imaginary red lines in the sand.. then back out using some piss poor excuse.
We won that war... we could have continued a war for an unlimited amount of time... but we lost the battle...for democracy and putting together a stronger Iraq democracy not led by religious fanatics... because?
Poor negotiations... totally piss poor. We bowed to their demands of a "provisional government"... we let the religious nutcases into power, let them use it to their liking and ended up with the shit hole it is now.
We would have had issues maintaining a permanent presence there... but the alternative is ISIS and a nuclear powered Iran. Which one was better... will be written by whoever continues to remain in power.
As long as the DNC remains the political force it is... expect the same results in future generations.
No more wars to end wars... no "Unconditional Surrenders"... as long as the head of that shit hole nation remains at large...with no one willing to sign an unconditional surrender... We will continue to win the big ones and the big picture... but will only loose the battle by shitty leadership influenced by... politicians who never served in the military, do not know what its like to win a individual trophy... because everyone gets a trophy in liberal sports world today... even the worst player in the league.
Strong leadership requires making statements that result in positive action... We do not need leaders who draw imaginary red lines in the sand.. then back out using some piss poor excuse.
(2)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SSgt Clare May, SPC David S., agreed. The Dems were the same problem in Iraq as they were in Viet Nam. As long as the country keeps electing liberal/progressives we will continue to lose wars - or rather we will continue to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by throwing in the towel.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google