The reason ISIS exist has more to do with us pulling into Iraq in the first place, than pulling out.
Not a valid argument based on specific information from military commanders who recommended a force of 20,000 remain in Iraq, nor the former head of the CIA. Leon Pannetta, who recommended that at least 10,000 troops remain in the country.
For the last three years the president and his administration have done nothing to mitigate the rise of ISIS, which has transformed itself from a terrorist group into a full blown army that controls a cross-border swath of territory from Mosul up through the Anbar province, and west to the Syrian town of Al Bab on the outskirts of Aleppo. “This organization has grown into a military organization that is no longer conducting terrorist activities exclusively but is conducting conventional military operations,” said retired four-star Army Gen. Jack Keane, who was a key advisor to Gen. David Petraeus during the war in Iraq. “They are attacking Iraqi military positions with company-and battalion-size formations. And in the face of that the Iraqi security forces have not been able to stand up to it.”
That inability is a direct consequence of Obama’s determination to completely withdraw from Iraq in December of 2011, irrespective of events on the ground and advice of military commanders. Withdrawal was precipitated by the president’s failure to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement that would have allowed some U.S. troops to remain in country. And while the media prefer to blame Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the fault lies squarely with a president who demonstrated a calculated indifference towards negotiating a deal in 2011 similar to the one George W. Bush procured in 2008 under far more difficult circumstances.
The result was President Obama’s commitment of only 3000-5000 troops to Iraq following the 2011 withdrawal. That number seriously undercut the recommendations of his military commanders who had asked for 20,000 troops to carry out such missions as counterterrorist operations, diplomat support — and the training and support for Iraqi security forces. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen would have been satisfied with 10,000 troops, but Obama rejected this. The Maliki government, already risking a domestic backlash for keeping any troops in the nation, concluded that the political risks involved weren’t worth it when Obama was so transparently unserious.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arnold-ahlert/who-lost-iraq/
Obama was happy to claim credit for removing all US forces from Iraq - now, he can damn well absorb criticism for the results of his decision.
Presidential debate, 2012: “With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement,” Romney told Obama as the two convened on the Lynn University campus in Boca Raton, Fla., that October evening. ”That’s not true,” Obama interjected. “Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?” Romney asked as an argument ensued. “No,” Obama said. “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/11/obamas-2012-debate-boast-i-didnt-want-leave-any-troops-iraq
[Video of Obama saying that accompanies link]
So for the love of God, Barry, stop blaming Bush for your decisions.
How much blood and treasure do you think we should spend in Iraq? I think borrowing from China, to spend in the Middle East hurts our national security.
You are now concerned with the national debt? Hmmm.
How about if that money was spent on solar-powered helicopters? Would you feel the same way?
Yeah, think not.
Terrorists have largely been funded by oil money, supporters of big oil are supporters of terrorism.
Elon Musk is actually the biggest fighter against terrorism. If oil is devalued, the funds for terrorism will dry up.
Or maybe drill the massive, known accessible reserves we have? Oh, that's right, the massive reserves - billions upon billions of barrels of accessible oil - are on Federal lands or are precluded from development by Federal policies.
Back to you, chief. Here, let me help you get started ...
Boooooooooooosh!!!!
