Hillary and Obama Led Us To Defeat In Iraq

By 34 Comments 1,836 views

Last night VP Nominee Kaine made this assertion:

KAINE: Do you know that we had 175,000 troops deployed in the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? … And instead of 175,000 American troops deployed overseas, we now have 15,000….These are very, very good things.

In Tim Kaine’s world a accomplishment of a American leader is the number of American fighting men and women in harms way?

I supposed that could be true if our enemy had been defeated.

As it stands today they are anything but.

Islamic jihadists control more territory than they did when Obama and Hillary took over. They have continuously attacked us and our interests on our shores and overseas. Not to mention that their attacks have become more effective then when Hillary took over as Secretary of State.

How is this a accomplishment?

It isn’t.

Under Obama’s and Hillary’s leadership we retreated and we are now in much more danger worldwide.

Of course Obama and Hillary continue to push the false narrative that they pulled our troops out because the SOFA Bush had signed required them too.

Complete and utter bull.


If the current situation in Iraq can be perceived as avoidable due to the blundering adventurism of Bush 43, then more specifically, the more recent decision on the part of President Obama not to flex our previous influence over Maliki and push harder for a new SoFA is a more direct contribution to the rise of ISIS in Iraq. How can anyone absolve Obama 44 while still blaming Bush 43? Syria’s civil war began during President Obama’s tenure. Al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated by 2009 when President Bush left office. Its remnants gathered new life in the Syrian Civil War. Too little too late, some rebel groups had no choice but to ally themselves with jihadis and Islamists- “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. ISIS began its excursions and takeover of Iraqi cities in 2014. At the time, President Obama dismissed them as a JV squad. He did not perceive them to be an existential threat to Iraq or the U.S.

Had we successfully kept combat troops in Iraq after 2011, ISIS would never have been able to successfully gain so much traction. Even conceding that there was no way to renegotiate SoFA, there was still a failure of leadership in the President not doing more to help Iraq with early intervention. After all, Bush broke it and he owns it. Apparently it isn’t “we broke it we own it.” Unfortunately, Bush is no longer the decider. President Obama essentially told Iraq, you’re on your own.

Wrodsmith links to this interview of the adviser to U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno, and Middle East expert, Emma Sky:

In my mind, the biggest mistake made by the Obama administration was actually in 2010, not upholding the election results. It’s a very, very close election. Very close election. To everybody’s surprise, it was actually won by the party called Iraqia [ph] headed by Ayad Allawi, and this party was campaigning on a nonsectarian — no to sectarian platform. People want to get rid of religious parties, people want to put sectarians behind to build an Iraq for all Iraqis. This party won two more votes than Nouri al-Maliki. Maliki couldn’t believe the results. All his advisors have told him that, “You’re going to win. You’re going to win big.” When the results came in, he was just in shock. He blamed the international community for tampering with the results, he demanded a recount, he started to use debuffication to try and disqualify the Iraqian [ph] leaders, and this went on and on and on for months, and there was a big dispute within the US system which I described in the book, between those who wanted to uphold the election results and give the winning block, Iraqia, the right to have first go at trying to form the government, and those who said look, “Maliki, he’s our guy. I belong to that former group that thought give the winning block the right to have first go in trying to form the government. I didn’t think Ayad Allawi was going to be able to do it himself as Prime Minister, but I thought that negotiation was really important.

Gideon Rose: We give it to Maliki, walked away, and he then destroyed Iraq?

Emma Sky: Well, this is kind of what happens. This is when the Iranian steps in. The Iranians — they’re influence had really gone down during the surge. America was seen as the big player. The Iranians saw this opportunity and they tried to get all the Shia together to support Maliki, but the Shia were coming together, but they would not going to have Maliki as prime minister. In the end, the Iranians went to Lebanese Hezbollah and got Lebanese Hezbollah to pressure the Sadrist to support Maliki. Maliki had really gone off to the Sadrists during the surge, and the Sadrists were like, “Over our dead body,” but with Iranian pressure …

Gideon Rose: Quite literally often.

Emma Sky: Quite literally — with Iranian pressure, with Lebanese Hezbollah helping out, they pressure the Sadrists and they said, “Look, support Maliki as prime minister, we will ensure no US troops will remain in Iraq after 2011.” That is what happened. The Iranians brokered the deal, and the price was always going to be no US troops. Maliki, second term, determined to go after all his rivals. First of all, he goes off to the Iraqia leaders, accuses them of terrorism. Then he started to round up masses of Sunni’s, put them in jail. All of these people being held not knowing why they were being held. Sunni starts to feel more alienated, more grievances, which ends up in this mass protests across Iraq, demanding an end to this discrimination. Unfortunately again, Maliki doesn’t respond to those through negotiations. He sends in the security forces and a few of the demonstrators are killed. 50 killed in Hawijah, and it just boils and boils and boils.

Gideon Rose: We’re not there to keep things in order, we’re not pushing Maliki to be nicer, and at that point, then ISIS emerges and takes over the — eventually, the Sunni areas who go with them because they’re disgusted with the Maliki government.

Emma Sky: Exactly.

Ultimately it is a fact that when Hillary took over the helm at State the situation was looking quite good in Iraq. Her decisions contributed to the complete dismantling of the situation in Iraq and led to the rise of ISIS.

How in the world Kaine thinks this is a accomplishment is beyond me.

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

34 Responses to “Hillary and Obama Led Us To Defeat In Iraq”

  1. 26


    Even the Washington Post published a piece acknowledging that the Bush State department expected the incoming Obama regime to renegotiate a SOFA. Maliki was willing to grant it as a preseidential order/agreement, but Obama insisted on the Iraqi parliment signing off on such an agreement, which was not going to happen given the makeup of the Iraqi parliment at the time. Obama was unwilling to accept a SOFA without parlimentary approval, because he wanted to pull US troops out for blatantly political reasons. (Contrast that with Obama’s unconstitutional climate change treaty stupidity in refusing to have the treaty undergo ratification by the Senate).

    The rise of ISIS is absolutely the responsibility of Obama’s pro-muslim, anti-US political decision to prematurely remove US troops from Iraq.

  2. 28

    Bill… Deplorable Me

    Leaving Iraq was always predicated on conditions on the ground. Though Obama was informed what those conditions were, what the risks to withdrawing were and was WELL AWARE of the “power vacuum” that would be left, he knew better.

    But Obama’s superior instincts took over and he ignored all intelligent advice and just did it anyway.

    And then there was ISIS.

  3. 29




    Word has written all about the SOFA at length.

    Thanks for remembering, John and Curt!


    So why did the Bush administration lock in a specific timetable for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq that could not be revised without the consent of the Iraqi government, only a month before Obama took office?

    I think he did what he felt he needed to do at the time (with the assumption that his successor would renegotiate the terms at a later date).

    Bush’s desire was to keep a presence in Iraq for mutual security and because he knew it would take long-term commitment to get it right. What was senator/president Obama’s desire? To wash our hands of Iraq and bring our troops home. Bush basically signed on to the Obama model because the politics of the time demanded it; but, again, he did so in the confidence and trust that the next American leader would not abandon our hard-earned gains and leave Iraq, prematurely vulnerable.

    That’s precisely what they did. If you doubt it, read the S.O.F.A. The right is trying to lay blame on Obama for the worst republican geopolitical screw up in the history of the nation.

    Let’s go with your narrative that Obama was locked into abiding by SoFA, signed by Bush, with no way of renegotiating it. So then if he were obligated to follow the Agreement, what then of this:

    Article 27
    Deterrence of Security Threats

    In order to strengthen security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to the
    maintenance of international peace and stability, the Parties shall work
    actively to strengthen the political and military capabilities of the Republic
    of Iraq to deter threats against its sovereignty, political independence,
    territorial integrity, and its constitutional federal democratic system
    . To that
    end, the Parties agree as follows:

    1. In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may be mutually agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat.

    2. The Parties agree to continue close cooperation in strengthening and maintaining military and security institutions and democratic political institutions in Iraq, including, as may be mutually agreed, cooperation in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces, in order to combat domestic and international terrorism and outlaw groups, upon request by the Government of Iraq.

    I point to this because, let me remind:

    In 2013, Iraq began showing concerns of a rising Sunni militancy (in the absence of the U.S. flexing its influence over moderating a sectarian Maliki- plus in 2010 not supporting Iraq election results that saw Maliki lose- Sunnis were once again being alienated) and asked the White House for airstrikes and military aid (Oct 2013). Obama refused. In 2014, Iraq asked again (by this time, Obama already dismissed ISIS as a JV team in January) and was once again denied. Then by mid-June, the al Muthanna chemical weapons factory was seized by ISIS; and cities began to fall. Finally, president Obama sends some troops back into Iraq in advisory/training roles along with some airstrikes.

    I don’t mind people making a case for how Bush played a hand in shaping the course of history; but Bush has been out of power for these last 8 years. Obama is not some helpless bystander, victimized by decisions made the previous 8 years. He’s the leader of the free world. Where was his leadership on Iraq? He essentially acquiesced to the anti-war movement and non-interventionists; and his leadership vacuum allowed for American influence to be replaced by Iranian influence in Iraq. And his weak leadership on Syria and dealing with the Arab Spring bred fertile ground for the regrowth and rebranding of AQI/ISIS.


    Anyone here personally willing to go back to Iraq as a volunteer to help do what they think needs to be done? Or are they just wanting some other person to risk their ass in a country that Bush destabilized?

    John, with all due respect, your chickenhawk line of debate is idiocy masquerading as substance. It’s an intellectually lazy line designed for nothing more than to shutdown debate so you don’t actually have to engage the merits of any arguments.

    You believe in staying out of Iraq? Why aren’t you out there in your Code Pink skirt, frollicking your protest sign before Senate committee hearings? Support firefighters fighting fires? Why aren’t you picking up a hose and doing it yourself? Go cook your own burger! Why are you allowing others to cook it for you? Believe in climate change? Why aren’t you out there chaining yourself to a lear jet and putting your life on the line to save the planet and your children’s future? You believe in liberal causes? Why aren’t you running for office? Why aren’t you risking your neck? If you truly believe in law enforcement and stopping criminals, why aren’t you out there making citizens arrests yourself and joining a police department? Why allow others to do the dirty work of fighting crime and keeping you safe, for you?


  4. 31


    wordsworth are YOU ready to put your butt on the line and go back yourself to Iraq? perhaps as a volunteer with the Kurds? Or are you part of the ” I want someone else (Obama) to order other people (the US military) to go and do something I wouldn’t myself do
    Is anyone ?
    Americans had an election they elected the man who promised to get us out of there (as the Bush signed SOFA promised we would) Obama one by 100 electoral votes a landslide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *