National Stats during Obama Admin

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-19-2017, 09:05 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Hey, Mike, have you ever heard of about a sectarian civil war in Iraq?  Well, what do you think that means? Who do you think the sects are?  Where might the sects be located?

Yes I have and Know what that means, can't name all groups atm, but I know most of the factions involved are usually Sunni, Kurds, Shite, Shia and maybe another?

Which is why I said we shouldn't leave.
All groups need to feel like they are a part of the new democratic government or else it just won't work.

(01-20-2017, 01:49 AM)Dill Wrote: You understand that the "insurgents" for each of the dates you cite above were entirely different groups, right?
I don't know what "handful of bombings" refers to.

Yes I know they were different groups, I was looking at Timelines for the war in general.
The Bombings happened a lot after the initial attack.

(01-20-2017, 02:33 AM)Dill Wrote: 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?

Quick point. Thanks for taking the time to respond in a non-condescending and informative manner.

1. Agreed, ISIS wasn't on our intel in 2011.
2. Yes and no, the wrong people wanted us out, the people that wanted freedom didn't. There was even a poll that showed that 51% of Iraqi's wanted the US military presence to stay.
3. I know he's not absolute, but yanking the soldiers out in October vs December would've given more time for both sides to reach a better agreement. I also know he didn't start the war, but he should've been adamant that we make sure the new government has a chance to succeed. Most likely Congress would've went along.

On your last point about how many more American's would've died, no idea, but we know that almost 40k Iraqi Civilians have died since we left and ISIL/ISIS gained control. Now what is the price of those Iraqi Civilians vs 1 US Soldier?
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

I'd rather we not continue arguing about it, and that I hope we have learned a valuable lesson about invading other countries that you must also have a solid rebuilding/exit plan. But unfortunately, I doubt we will.