For Obama, an Unexpected Legacy of Two Full Terms at War

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by lowendlinux, May 16, 2016.

  1. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #1
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/u...ick&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article

    It was actually a nice article articulating the differences in how the last two presidents conducted military operations. The part that I really found annoying were the finger pointing comments. If we as a nation are going to get out of the war business we need to stop expending energy laying blame for the problems we have and use that energy to deal with them.
     
  2. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #2
    Obama. A practicing president and warrior. Warring after having lost ground gained via blood and treasure by allowing ISIS to fester and grow, and then furthering waste by conducting a war where more sorties return with full payload than not, under rules of engagement that put service members at risk. The world is more dangerous and unstable now under the Obama presidency.
     
  3. Fancuku macrumors 6502a

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
    #3
    I wonder what happened to all the was demonstrators these past 7 years.
     
  4. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #4

    LOL
     
  5. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #5
    I agree that it was a well-written, accurate and insightful article.

    If Barack Obama has achieved some sort of record in having ongoing military operations for the bulk of his Presidency, its only because his predecessor enjoyed eight months of peace at the beginning of his term in office. But I think we as Americans need to reflect on the fact that very few of us raised much protest when we learned that the US had begun conducting air and special forces operations in Afghanistan began in early October, 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom certainly turned out to be accurately named, at least on the enduring part.

    We'll leave the disastrous, and tragic, Iraq invasion for the judgement of history. I do believe that President Obama made the correct decision to follow through on the agreement the Bush Administration had made to withdraw US forces from Iraq.
     
  6. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #6
    It wasn't only the special people there, I deployed in October of 2001 and I was not special in any way.
     
  7. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #7
    Do you expect any thoughtful person to take your comments seriously? Your tendency is to push partisan fantasy as if Republicans are smarter, can fight war better, when the Iraq invasion was idiotic, they were the ones that created this mess and stupidly announce mission accomplished in 2003. Oh yea, that's old news, you refuse to acknowledge, let's not focus on what got the ball rolling. Before there was ISIS, there was Al Qaeda, the Pheonix will continue to rise as long as there are bitterly angery, and/or power hungary people in the region. Whether you realize or not, you advocate permanent occupation as the solution.

    For Obama, I'd have hoped he would have us as a nation walk away, but we do hold responsibility as a country for the push that helped destabilize the region. Despite his desire to end the war, he did withdraw troops on 2011 as part of the agreement signed by The Republican President Duh-bya and the Iraq Prime Minister. it's arguable that events, council and allies prevailed upon Obsma not too walk away completely based our responsibility for these actions as a country to Iraq and the region. :(

    For anyone who cares to digest relevant info. Fielding, I don't expect this cuisine to be on your menu. It does not suit the Republican agenda.. There is more in this article than what I quoted:
    NPR Fact Check: Did Obama Withdraw From Iraq Too Soon, Allowing ISIS To Grow?

    It is important to remember most Iraqis saw the Americans as occupiers and blame them for civilian deaths.

    Maliki summed up the sentiment at the time, thus:
    "The incomplete sovereignty and the presence of foreign troops are the most dangerous, most complicated and most burdensome legacy we have faced since the time of dictatorship. Iraq should get rid of them to protect its young democratic experiment."

    The State Department's lawyers said troops couldn't stay in Iraq unless the Iraqi parliament authorized them to do so, including granting them immunity from Iraqi law. The Iraqi parliamentarians would never OK such a decision, with Iraqi popular opinion staunchly against U.S. troops staying.

    Ironically it was the continuing Sunni-Shiite strife within Iraq that opened the door for ISIS:
    Many Sunni sheikhs say once the American soldiers left, the minority Sunni population of Iraq suffered under a government dominated by the Shiite majority. That government stopped paying most of them, and even arrested many.



     
  8. FieldingMellish, May 16, 2016
    Last edited: May 16, 2016

    FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #8
    Since Obama’s been warring, there’s been crickets on the part of the left, hasn’t there? Those who under Bush were crowing daily about war, wars and Iraq.
    --- Post Merged, May 16, 2016 ---

    Obama knew of ISIS rise, but being Obama, he didn't give a crap. Sat on his hands. This is the kind of sentiment ISIS got from Obama:

    “Obama admits golf after Foley beheading was bad idea, wants vacation from media”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/8/obama-admits-golf-after-james-foley-announcement-w/

    I would also take the position that PBS Frontline arrived at as it pertains to blame about ISIS' rise:

    Beyond Beheadings
    ‘The Rise of ISIS,’ a PBS ‘Frontline’ Documentary

    By Mike Hale, NY Times.

    “For those whose knowledge of the Islamic State is limited to televised beheadings, “The Rise of ISIS,” on PBS’s “Frontline” on Tuesday, is required viewing.

    Reported by Martin Smith, the hourlong program takes the story of this brutal, ever-growing militant group back to the FINAL DEPARTURE of American troops from Iraq in 2011. It’s a dense, fast-moving narrative focused on the failure of the Shiite-led Iraqi government to share power with the Sunni minority and the INACTION OF THE UNITED STATES while Sunni militants exploited the situation for their own gain. Blame is placed, quite directly, on the former Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki AND ON PRESIDENT OBAMA.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/a...of-isis-a-pbs-frontline-documentary.html?_r=0
     
  9. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    Two full terms and two new conflicts , plenty dead and millions displaced.
     
  10. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    Generals gathered in their masses,
    just like witches at black masses.
    Evil minds that plot destruction,
    sorcerer of death's construction.
    In the fields the bodies burning,
    as the war machine keeps turning.
     
  11. Jess13, May 16, 2016
    Last edited: May 16, 2016

    Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #11
    The great men and women of Code Pink still go hard.

    Warbama has bombed more countries than Bush. The Warbama regime has dropped more bombs than the Bush regime. Warbama has helped to violently overthrow foreign governments. Warbama is still trying to violently overthrow the Syrian government. Warbama is protecing 9/11 co-conspirators. Warbama is siding with 9/11 co-conspirators in U.S. federal courts vs. thousands of American 9/11 victims’ families, survivors, and the American public in general. Warbama has conspired in his own terrorism conspiracy with 9/11 co-conspirators he protects for 9/11, in their attempt to overthrow the Syrian government. Warbama is arming al-Qaeda terrorists with thousands of tons of AK-47s, heavy machine guns, ammunition, rocket launchers, and explosives. Warbama has continued and expanded the drone strike terrorism, at minimum, 10x what Bush did. Warbama has killed more civilians with drones than Osama killed civilians with planes. On and on and on, I could continue. Warbama protects Bush & Co. for all their crimes, foreign and domestic, their war crimes and crimes against humanity. Warbama is the biggest and fakest joke in U.S. politics ever, bar none.


     
  12. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    He didn't manage to fix things, but you seem to overlook that he didn't cause the initial problem since Obama did not start the second Iraq war, which allowed ISIS to really take hold. Especially as he voted NO to that Iraq war, not believing the (fair at the time) reasoning GWB swindled people into believing, though as history had shown GWB lied about "imminent threat", changed excuses, and even went on camera to try to still justify it - from "liberating" to "Oh, well they had none but - but - they had the capability to make an imminent threat" (really, George??)
     
  13. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #13
    I think we mostly found out that the right is generally consistent on their support for wars although they are more likely to blame a democratic president when things go wrong than they were to go after a Republican one when things went wrong. And the Democrats seem to be mostly anti war when it benefits them politically. Although i think part of it was that when Obama turned out to be not so anti war there weren't any other anti war options. Although it would have been nice to see an anti war candidate challenge Obama in the 2012 primary.
     

Share This Page