National Stats during Obama Admin

[Dill]

(01-19-2017, 06:37 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Is he the Commander in Chief or not? He absolutely has the power to change it based on Intel... oops Forgot he wasn't paying attention to those reports. Oh well never mind.

I understand about point 2, but if intel thinks they are not ready, then they are not ready.
Now with that understood, if the "insurgents" were busy taking over cities like oncemore was telling us, then we should've known that there was still a threat to the new Leadership and that they were not ready to handle that group.

Didn't one of the Generals advise that we leave at least 35k behind instead of pulling them all out?
He even stated that there were options and that they didn't have to leave if they didn't want to. Neither Bush nor Obama had much of an after war plan. If we are going to do something like this, we have to finish it and see it thru.

Mike, regarding your first point: 1. there was no intel suggesting that ISIL was a threat in 2011 because it did not come into existence until 2013, in Syria. 2. The presence of US troops in Iraq was itself the primary cause of continuing insurgent violence and a source of political instability. Assuming stability was in the US national interest, getting the troops out was a good idea, not to mention a campaign promise supported by the majority of Americans tired of the quagmire. 3. Obama is the Commander in chief, but his powers are not absolute, even in terms of non-declared wars, treaties, and other military adventures. Remember that Congress could refuse to fund a continued occupation; also, Congress can direct the president to remove armed forces from any foreign country or conflict any time 60 days after their commencement (according to the War Powers Resolution). Few wanted the troops to stay though, since it would have meant hundreds of soldiers dying every year without any clear goal.

The only serious proposal to leave troops behind was the 10,000 number (similar to the residual force now in A-stan). But given the political context of the time, I am not sure Congress would have gone along. 

As intimated above, the "seeing it thru" appeared to be part of the problem in Iraq--the main problem in 2011. The one thing Obama might have done is insisted upon a balanced government in Baghdad--but that ran the risks of delegitimizing the government. 

Obama did not start a war so we can't blame him for no after war plan. He inherited a terrible problem and proposed a reasonable solution to it. In terms of US lives saved, it still looks like a good solution. About 4,500 US military died in Iraq--most AFTER the hot war of 2003.  What would the US body count be now after 5 more years of occupation? 6 or 7 thousand?