The "Founding" of ISIS

[Airbrush]

Trump is famous for his repeated claim that "Obama founded ISIS" because he believes that Obama's decision to get totally out of Iraq was a mistake because it created a vacuum that allowed ISIS to form and grow. But was it Obama's decision that created this vacuum or was it the Iraq government that insisted that US forces had to leave because we could not arrive at an adequate status of forces agreement?

 

My next question is why do we never hear commentary on the second part of Trump's response to Howard Stern in Sept of 2002 when Trump answered Howard's question "Should we go into Iraq?" shortly before the Iraq war began in 2003. Donald answered "Yeah, I guess so....I wish the first time it was done correctly."

 

What does he mean by "the first time" and "done correctly"? Correct me if I am wrong but I will go out on a limb and suggest that "the first time" means the Gulf War that ended in February of 1991 when Bush Senior and coalition kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, but stopped after that, NOT FOLLOWING the Iraqi army into Iraq to conquer Saddam. "Done correctly" means that Bush Senior SHOULD HAVE conquered Iraq. In hindsight Trump's idea would have HASTENED the founding of ISIS by 2 years.

 

​"...On November 16, 2008, Iraq's Cabinet approved the agreement, which cited the end of 2009 for the pull out of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities, and 2011 as the fixed deadline for removal of U.S. military presence in country. U.S. concessions involved a ban on U.S. forces searching and raiding homes without Iraqi approval, the right of Iraqis to search shipments of weapons and packages entering the country for U.S. recipients, and the right of Iraq's justice system to prosecute American troops for serious crimes under some circumstances."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Edited September 28, 2016 by Airbrush

[swansont]

Trump is famous for his repeated claim that "Obama founded ISIS" because he believes that Obama's decision to get totally out of Iraq was a mistake because it created a vacuum that allowed ISIS to form and grow. But was it Obama's decision that created this vacuum or was it the Iraq government that insisted that US forces had to leave because we could not arrive at an adequate status of forces agreement?

Removing troops from Iraq was part of an agreement that President Bush made, so it was not Obama's decision to make. The impasse in the agreement to keep troops there past the deadline hinged on insistence that US troops be immune to Iraqi prosecution (but not US law), and Iraq didn't want to agree to that.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/18/jeb-bush/obama-refused-sign-plan-place-leave-10000-troops-i/

[CharonY]

Possibly, but as with all "what if" questions it is almost impossible to tell. A big question would e.g. have been the policy regarding the old government and military.

[iNow]

Airbrush - Go to the below. Watch. Read. Learn. Enjoy:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/rise-of-isis/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-secret-history-of-isis/

 

Encourage starting with the above, but see also:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ7OvSDuN1I

Edited September 29, 2016 by iNow

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

No more conspiracy theories. I've hidden one, and if any more questionable sources are used to spread misinformation, those responsible will face the consequences. Let's keep this thread rational and reasonable.

[waitforufo]

And yet, it was Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton that failed to negotiate the status of forces agreement. Likely because he wanted to leave too few troops. Why would Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spend the political capital on a SOFA agreement for fewer than 5000 troops, where our own military suggested a number between 16000 and 24000 troops.

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/martha-raddatz/obama-wanted-keep-10000-troops-iraq-abcs-raddatz-c/

 

 

Military commanders in Washington and in Baghdad pushed for a residual force between 16,000 and 24,000 to conduct counterrorism work and train Iraqi security forces.

The White House, reports show, was not open to a force that size.

The Obama administration was initially open to leaving up to 10,000 troops in Iraq after the scheduled pullout at the end of 2011, a controversial pitch that would have required approval from Iraq’s divided government to change the 2008 agreement, the Los Angeles Times reported. The troops were to be placed in Baghdad and other "strategic" locations around the country.

It did not stay there. The New York Times detailed how the one-time goal of a 10,000-person force shrank before negotiations failed altogether.

 

Obama ruled out the 10,000-troop option in an Aug. 13, 2011, conference call, according to the New York Times, and "the new goal would be a continuous presence of about 3,500 troops, a rotating force of up to 1,500 and half a dozen F-16’s."

[iNow]

Even your own link and the section you quoted says this was due to Iraq's divided government, yet you blame Obama and Clinton. Fascinating.

[waitforufo]

Even your own link and the section you quoted says this was due to Iraq's divided government, yet you blame Obama and Clinton. Fascinating.

 

As I said...

= Why would Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spend the political capital on a SOFA agreement for fewer than 5000 troops, where our own military suggested a number between 16000 and 24000 troops?

 

So Maliki rejects the SOFA agreement based on the trivial number of troops offered, so you feel that Iraq is at blame. Fascinating.

[iNow]

Curious: Your position as presented suggests ISIS would not have formed if we'd left 16,000 troops instead of 3,500. Is that correct? After all, we can all make up anything we want since that's not what happened. Why not 9,000 troops, or 6,471?

[waitforufo]

Curious: Your position as presented suggests ISIS would not have formed if we'd left 16,000 troops instead of 3,500. Is that correct? After all, we can all make up anything we want since that's not what happened. Why not 9,000 troops, or 6,471?

Gee, I seem to remember Gorge Bush being accused by the left of not listening to his generals in time of war. Accusations that were false. I guess listening to your generals doesn't apply to Mr. Obama.

 

Look you know as well as I do that Obama made campaign promises to pull out of Iraq. All he cared about was fulfilling those promises. In fact when he pulled out of Iraq he called it a great achievement. Well now he owns that achievement. Just like he owns his Syria redline and the consequences of not following up on it. In both instances the world learned that Obama is a coward. The world you see today, Aleppo, the refugee crisis, Iran's growing dominance in the middle east, North Korea's nuke assertiveness. These are all responses to his cowardice. History will not treat him well.

[swansont]

 

So Maliki rejects the SOFA agreement based on the trivial number of troops offered, so you feel that Iraq is at blame. Fascinating.

 

 

You haven't established that this is the reason it was rejected. Your link says the talks broke down over the issue of immunity. So you make yet another claim based on...nothing. Fascinating indeed.

[iNow]

I seem to remember Gorge Bush being accused by the left of not listening to his generals in time of war. Accusations that were false. I guess listening to your generals doesn't apply to Mr. Obama.

You're not talking to "the left." You're talking to me, and I never made any such claims. Not even close.

 

The world you see today, Aleppo, the refugee crisis, Iran's growing dominance in the middle east, North Korea's nuke assertiveness. These are all responses to his cowardice.

I imagine it must be comforting to see the world so simplistically and in black and white like this. Unfortunately, I was born with a mind that understands nuance and trained to think critically.

[waitforufo]

You're not talking to "the left." You're talking to me, and I never made any such claims. Not even close.

 

I imagine it must be comforting to see the world so simplistically and in black and white like this. Unfortunately, I was born with a mind that understands nuance and trained to think critically.

Oh yeah, I forgot China claiming and militarizing the South China Sea, the Philippines telling Obama to go to hell and aligning with China, and stabbing Israel in the back at the UN. He even offended Canada.

 

By the way, don't you think Obama should have given a time certain for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

I'm not surprised that you are impressed with your own mind. Perhaps you should turn it on when looking at Obama's failures.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-rest-of-the-story-what-obama-wont-tell-you-about-his-legacy-2017-01-05

http://www.hoover.org/research/obamas-legacy-deceit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-foreign-policy-was-error-after-error/2017/01/06/4bbde2b4-d371-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.3c29292efe3e

[dimreepr]

And yet, it was Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton that failed to negotiate the status of forces agreement. Likely because he wanted to leave too few troops. Why would Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spend the political capital on a SOFA agreement for fewer than 5000 troops, where our own military suggested a number between 16000 and 24000 troops.

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/martha-raddatz/obama-wanted-keep-10000-troops-iraq-abcs-raddatz-c/

 

 

Your argument is predicated on the rise of ISIS coinciding with Obama's presidency, much to simplistic.

 

Hatred like this takes many generations and the right conditions to emerge, for instance the IRA started in the late 1700s.

• • The Irish Republican Army (1917–22) (in later years, known as the "Old" IRA), recognised by the First Dáil as the legitimate army of the Irish Republic in April 1921, split into pro-Treaty forces (the National Army, also known as the Government forces or the Regulars) and anti-Treaty forces (the Republicans, Irregulars or Executive forces) after the Treaty.
  • The Irish Republican Army (1922–69) – the anti-treaty IRA which fought and lost the civil war and which thereafter refused to recognise either the Irish Free State or Northern Ireland, deeming them both to be creations of British imperialism. It existed in one form or another for over 40 years before splitting in 1969.

   

   

[iNow]

I'm not surprised that you are impressed with your own mind. Perhaps you should turn it on when looking at Obama's failures.

You choose to continue the us/them childish personal attacks. That's unfortunate.

 

You are wrong to assume I see no flaws or failures in the Obama presidency. Suggesting I'm somehow incapable of doing so highlights the weakness and unfounded nature of your position, not mine.

[Ten oz]

Trump is famous for his repeated claim that "Obama founded ISIS" because he believes that Obama's decision to get totally out of Iraq was a mistake because it created a vacuum that allowed ISIS to form and grow. But was it Obama's decision that created this vacuum or was it the Iraq government that insisted that US forces had to leave because we could not arrive at an adequate status of forces agreement?

 

My next question is why do we never hear commentary on the second part of Trump's response to Howard Stern in Sept of 2002 when Trump answered Howard's question "Should we go into Iraq?" shortly before the Iraq war began in 2003. Donald answered "Yeah, I guess so....I wish the first time it was done correctly."

 

What does he mean by "the first time" and "done correctly"? Correct me if I am wrong but I will go out on a limb and suggest that "the first time" means the Gulf War that ended in February of 1991 when Bush Senior and coalition kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, but stopped after that, NOT FOLLOWING the Iraqi army into Iraq to conquer Saddam. "Done correctly" means that Bush Senior SHOULD HAVE conquered Iraq. In hindsight Trump's idea would have HASTENED the founding of ISIS by 2 years.

 

​"...On November 16, 2008, Iraq's Cabinet approved the agreement, which cited the end of 2009 for the pull out of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities, and 2011 as the fixed deadline for removal of U.S. military presence in country. U.S. concessions involved a ban on U.S. forces searching and raiding homes without Iraqi approval, the right of Iraqis to search shipments of weapons and packages entering the country for U.S. recipients, and the right of Iraq's justice system to prosecute American troops for serious crimes under some circumstances."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Iraq post the U.S. invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein was never stable. The "vacuum" left by U.S. troops leaving is often cited for enabling violence but 05' & 06' were two of the most violent and deadly years in Iraq. Violence in Iraq did not become appreciably worse after 2009. It was during the most violent years of the Iraq War refugees and rebels/terrorists/enemy combatants (whatever label) poured into Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

 

In the early days of the Iraq War the U.S. Govt (Bush Admin) had Syria in their crosshairs. In the lead up to the Iraq war we (USA) accussed Syria of haboring terrorist, then imposed sanctions against Syria in 04', and in 06' started supporting anti Assad organizations within Syria.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/world/bush-imposes-sanctions-on-syria-citing-ties-to-terrorism.html

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1571751,00.html

 

In my opinion the problems truly go back further than that. The Partioning of the Ottoman Empire that created Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine was done poorly. The issues in the Middle East have a long background and plenty of blame. Far too many layers to fit into President-Elects 140 character world view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

 

At this point though all we can do is focus on what we do next. No time machines exist to allow us to go backwards. Currently I am concerned about Turkey. It appears that President-Elects policy towards Syria will be to let Russia handle it. Which means Pro-Assad forces crush rebels. As that happens many will flee into Turkey. With a population a few times larger than Syria's the risks of war/terrorism/rebellion in Turkey would create a larger world crisis than Syria has.

[waitforufo]

At this point though all we can do is focus on what we do next. No time machines exist to allow us to go backwards. Currently I am concerned about Turkey. It appears that President-Elects policy towards Syria will be to let Russia handle it. Which means Pro-Assad forces crush rebels. As that happens many will flee into Turkey. With a population a few times larger than Syria's the risks of war/terrorism/rebellion in Turkey would create a larger world crisis than Syria has.

No need to worry about Assad. His "days are numbered."

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article31013325.html

[paragaster]

First of all, what is the Iraqi Government? It is people put in place by USA in Iraq after the previous Government was destroyed under a false pretext. This New Iraqi Government is just a puppet in the hands of USA.

Use some logic. No other country except USA decides what happens in Iraq. ISIS is a USA creation so please do not blame it on any single Government.

One more important hint for people: Who told you that politicians decide on matters related to anything? The American Establishment(Bureaucracy) that has teeth which are painfully sharp.