Al Queda In Iraq, and Syria

[OldTrapper]

And we went to war for what?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f71a26-036a-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html

With multiple groups competing for influence, the Islamic State cannot be held responsible for all the incidents that have occurred in Syria. Jabhat al-Nusra, the original Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate, which has resisted efforts by the Islamic State to absorb it, maintains a robust presence in many parts of the country. Criminal gangs also have taken advantage of the vacuum of authority to carry out kidnappings for ransom, mostly of Syrians.

But at a time when the Islamic State is undergoing a revival in Iraq, killing more people there than at any time since 2008 and staging a spectacular jailbreak last month that freed hundreds of militants, the push into Syria signifies the transformation of the group into a regional entity. The U.S. military — which referred to the organization as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) — claimed it had subdued AQI by the time the United States withdrew from Iraq in 2011.

 

[dogtowner]

when you broadcast that you checking out as of such and such a date its not surprising that AQ waited it out.

 

[OldTrapper]

when you broadcast that you checking out as of such and such a date its not surprising that AQ waited it out.

As did Bush, and Obama followed the lead. Now, would you have preferred we stayed there another ten years?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/penny-...lled-iraq-pledge-withdrawal-deal-was-set-bush

But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008.

The agreement, which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011.
"Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself," President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. "Two years ago this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/fleischer-iraq-withdrawal-time-181410927.html

However, the question again is why did we go there to begin with? Al Queda was not there, nor was bin Laden. There was no threat to the US from Iraq.

Equally laughable was the fact that when Obama said he was ending the war in Iraq all of you had a fit for him taking credit for something Bush had set up.

 

[dogtowner]

As did Bush, and Obama followed the lead. Now, would you have preferred we stayed there another ten years?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/penny-...lled-iraq-pledge-withdrawal-deal-was-set-bush

But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008.

The agreement, which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011.
"Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself," President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. "Two years ago this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/fleischer-iraq-withdrawal-time-181410927.html

However, the question again is why did we go there to begin with? Al Queda was not there, nor was bin Laden. There was no threat to the US from Iraq.

Equally laughable was the fact that when Obama said he was ending the war in Iraq all of you had a fit for him taking credit for something Bush had set up.

And as you may know, with Bush there was always a caveat. Caveat still in play in S Korea. Do I like it ? Not really but they chose to take half measures in both instances so this result is the result.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Yes, don't let them know when we are leaving...

also known as never leave....ever


Or do you think one day we can just pack up and be gone and no one will notice?

We should still be in full force in germany, don't want the nazi's to know we left!

idiots.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, don't let them know when we are leaving...

also known as never leave....ever


Or do you think one day we can just pack up and be gone and no one will notice?

We should still be in full force in germany, don't want the nazi's to know we left!

idiots.

Still in Germany because of Russia as you dont appear to know that.

 

[OldTrapper]

Still in Germany because of Russia as you dont appear to know that.

Are we?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2012/10/29/why-are-american-troops-still-stationed-in-europe/

At Hohenfels the Army trains not only American personnel but the armed forces of allied states, including the newer members of NATO. But it isn’t a NATO facility, an interesting anomaly. The training was extraordinarily sophisticated, preparing participants for irregular as well as regular conflict. In one of the “villages” that we visited—filled with people playing roles ranging from café owners to policemen—a truck bomb “exploded,” forcing the defending forces to respond as if they were in a combat situation. There even were local “journalists” taking pictures, which would later be “published” by media in the host “nation.”

The U.S. armed forces always will need to train. Doing so is an imperative for meeting objectives and reducing casualties in a range of operations. However, the objective of multilateral training is far less clear.

Then there is this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/02/laurence-m-vance/fact-checking-wapo/

First of all, according to the Base Structure Report, the Defense Department “manages a global real property portfolio consisting of more than 542,000 facilities (buildings, structures, and linear structures) located on nearly 5,000 sites worldwide covering more than 28 million acres.” Officially, as Kessler reports, there are 611 of these facilities in 39 foreign countries (excluding war zones). But why dismiss sites that are not “large sites”? Even small sites can have a replacement value of up to $929 million. True, some of the sites are not technically bases, but what about all the foreign bases that are not on the official list?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Still in Germany because of Russia as you dont appear to know that.

Still in fucking Afghanistan as well dumbass...where asked to leave Iraq...left.

you guys need to make up your mind...bitch about being world police, but yet pull out and you scream it weak ( if a dem does it) Don't pull out you bitch because there is no end plan. Have a time lime, your letting them know when we are leaving...don't have one bitch about a lack of a plan to get out.

Your just fucking pussies and hypocrites. Maybe we should send troops back to Mexico as well, and you know we fought against The Brits in Canada..

 

[Cruella]

Iraq Open to U.S. Drone Strikes on Terrorists

Al-Qaeda terror attacks have become such a deadly epidemic in
Iraq that the government in Baghdad is seeking U.S. advisers, air surveillance or even drone strikes, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said yesterday.

“We cannot fight these increasing terrorist” threats alone, Zebari said in an interview with reporters in Washington
. Zebari credited the U.S. with “vast experience” breaking up al-Qaeda cells in Iraq, and said that expertise in intelligence, analysis and targeting was lost when U.S. forces pulled out of his country in December 2011.

 

[OldTrapper]

Iraq Open to U.S. Drone Strikes on Terrorists

Al-Qaeda terror attacks have become such a deadly epidemic in
Iraq that the government in Baghdad is seeking U.S. advisers, air surveillance or even drone strikes, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said yesterday.

“We cannot fight these increasing terrorist” threats alone, Zebari said in an interview with reporters in Washington
. Zebari credited the U.S. with “vast experience” breaking up al-Qaeda cells in Iraq, and said that expertise in intelligence, analysis and targeting was lost when U.S. forces pulled out of his country in December 2011.

What is your point here? Are you suggesting we go back to Iraq to have more of our troops killed in a country that has no desire to be free, and where we could waste another trillion dollars, or two?

 

[Cruella]

What is your point here? Are you suggesting we go back to Iraq to have more of our troops killed in a country that has no desire to be free, and where we could waste another trillion dollars, or two?

I have no point. I posted a news article where Iraq is asking for our help with Al Qaeda. Obama said Al Qaeda was on the run. Well it looks like they have ran.....into Iraq.

 

[BigRob]

As did Bush, and Obama followed the lead. Now, would you have preferred we stayed there another ten years?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/penny-...lled-iraq-pledge-withdrawal-deal-was-set-bush

But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008.

The agreement, which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011.
"Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself," President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. "Two years ago this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/fleischer-iraq-withdrawal-time-181410927.html

However, the question again is why did we go there to begin with? Al Queda was not there, nor was bin Laden. There was no threat to the US from Iraq.

Equally laughable was the fact that when Obama said he was ending the war in Iraq all of you had a fit for him taking credit for something Bush had set up.

This is all accurate -- President Bush did indeed get the SOFA in place that would have troops out of Iraq by 2011. However, what it leaves out is that President Obama made a fairly significant effort to get a new SOFA in place that would leave thousands of troops in Iraq, with no real withdrawal timetable, but failed in these negotiations -- at which point the SOFA put in place by Bush was the default position.

That said, the idea that you will just stay in country until the job is done is somewhat absurd, especially when your goals amount to fairly vague objectives. I hate the argument that President's always fall back to of that they will listen to their commanders on the ground. They absolutely should listen to their ground commanders, but they should also take responsibility for the war they are in charge of and ensure that the job is being done. That doesn't mean run the war like Vietnam, but don't just step back and disengage either.