Home
Foreign Policy: Obama's team deliberately undermining the agreement with Iraq on keeping US troops in 2011
06/28/2015
Long-Presse / Baghdad
Certainly the Bush administration always bear some responsibility for the situation in Iraq, whether it be good or bad, as the invasion of Iraq was a step involve a lot of consequences, what step was taken by President Bush if he knew what we know today about Iraq. Also be sure to Iraqis always will bear some responsibility for the situation in their country, but they bear the lion's share of the responsibility.
US leaders have committed a lot of mistakes but it is not up to the number of mistakes made by Iraq's leaders and continue to commit.
President Obama's actions contributed to the conclusion reached by the situation in Iraq now, including; he invested a minimum of personal capital, and gave up the relationship (seeding commander of the commander), which was a priority in the Bush administration.
Vice President, Joe Biden, personal great leadership position in the administration, but had to overcome a major obstacle before he could earn the trust of Iraqis because of an earlier proposal to divide Iraq; also said Obama first team in Iraq has been unable to unify General David Atrallos efforts and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
When the negotiating team meeting administration seems to deliberately undermine the meeting through a deliberate leaks about the possibility of negotiating failure; eight convince Iraqis that leave the United States will result from the collaborative approach has proven its mistake theory.
As the former prime minister Nuri al-Maliki was less cooperative with the Obama administration of the Bush administration; Moreover, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not provide resources and strategic plans adequate to its task arduous after the war.
Management did not talk about anything but ending the Iraq war, and did not make great efforts to mobilize political support for the subsequent policy at home and abroad in order to ensure that the gains achieved by the Americans and the Iraqis at a heavy price.
Finally, some claim that the President did not want to leave large numbers of troops in Iraq and the administration did not pursue seriously the Status of Forces Agreement, and that was just a proposal.
These errors help explain why the United States found itself in the position of a full withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, despite the desire of officials in the Obama administration to negotiate in order to allow the deal to keep the force to help in the development of the training mission and promote stability.
Eventually it collapsed, the latest version of the deal, which included keeping the simple force in Iraq - but that did not happen because the Obama administration refused to keep it under some form of immunity guaranteed by the executive branch only and refusal of the Iraqi parliament.
Ironically, this is the same order in which the administration offered to send ground forces and the same numbers mentioned in the presentation of 2011. To what extent was such a force able to change the situation or to be useful, at least, over the past three years, it was impossible to say that this force would be useful, while it considers useful Obama administration now.
It is certain that this force be helpful to bring more peace if the situation was less worse. We recognized that even if the Iraqis, and especially al-Maliki, bear most of the blame, it does not absolve President Obama. In fact, al-Maliki was a disappointment, but in certain periods was nothing more frustrating than others.
Useful to compare the performance of al-Maliki during the following four periods; first before momentum, momentum during the Bush II, III during Obama's state before the withdrawal, fourth after the withdrawal. Al-Maliki's performance in the second period and is the best during the fourth period was the worst; while in the first two periods and the third was performed swinging. Real differences in performance and possibly change the game. Sure, these differences led the Americans to explain how their role in the relationship.
In other words, he was supposed to make Wathrah discussions about procedures, or lack of action by Obama is the most blame.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
06/28/2015
Long-Presse / Baghdad
Certainly the Bush administration always bear some responsibility for the situation in Iraq, whether it be good or bad, as the invasion of Iraq was a step involve a lot of consequences, what step was taken by President Bush if he knew what we know today about Iraq. Also be sure to Iraqis always will bear some responsibility for the situation in their country, but they bear the lion's share of the responsibility.
US leaders have committed a lot of mistakes but it is not up to the number of mistakes made by Iraq's leaders and continue to commit.
President Obama's actions contributed to the conclusion reached by the situation in Iraq now, including; he invested a minimum of personal capital, and gave up the relationship (seeding commander of the commander), which was a priority in the Bush administration.
Vice President, Joe Biden, personal great leadership position in the administration, but had to overcome a major obstacle before he could earn the trust of Iraqis because of an earlier proposal to divide Iraq; also said Obama first team in Iraq has been unable to unify General David Atrallos efforts and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
When the negotiating team meeting administration seems to deliberately undermine the meeting through a deliberate leaks about the possibility of negotiating failure; eight convince Iraqis that leave the United States will result from the collaborative approach has proven its mistake theory.
As the former prime minister Nuri al-Maliki was less cooperative with the Obama administration of the Bush administration; Moreover, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not provide resources and strategic plans adequate to its task arduous after the war.
Management did not talk about anything but ending the Iraq war, and did not make great efforts to mobilize political support for the subsequent policy at home and abroad in order to ensure that the gains achieved by the Americans and the Iraqis at a heavy price.
Finally, some claim that the President did not want to leave large numbers of troops in Iraq and the administration did not pursue seriously the Status of Forces Agreement, and that was just a proposal.
These errors help explain why the United States found itself in the position of a full withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, despite the desire of officials in the Obama administration to negotiate in order to allow the deal to keep the force to help in the development of the training mission and promote stability.
Eventually it collapsed, the latest version of the deal, which included keeping the simple force in Iraq - but that did not happen because the Obama administration refused to keep it under some form of immunity guaranteed by the executive branch only and refusal of the Iraqi parliament.
Ironically, this is the same order in which the administration offered to send ground forces and the same numbers mentioned in the presentation of 2011. To what extent was such a force able to change the situation or to be useful, at least, over the past three years, it was impossible to say that this force would be useful, while it considers useful Obama administration now.
It is certain that this force be helpful to bring more peace if the situation was less worse. We recognized that even if the Iraqis, and especially al-Maliki, bear most of the blame, it does not absolve President Obama. In fact, al-Maliki was a disappointment, but in certain periods was nothing more frustrating than others.
Useful to compare the performance of al-Maliki during the following four periods; first before momentum, momentum during the Bush II, III during Obama's state before the withdrawal, fourth after the withdrawal. Al-Maliki's performance in the second period and is the best during the fourth period was the worst; while in the first two periods and the third was performed swinging. Real differences in performance and possibly change the game. Sure, these differences led the Americans to explain how their role in the relationship.
In other words, he was supposed to make Wathrah discussions about procedures, or lack of action by Obama is the most blame.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
