Now that the Iraq Prime Minister has demanded Bush to remove his troops, and Bush is refusing, hasn't this
"As soon as possible": demand? Iraq and the US have called for an agreement on a "general time horizon" for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, the White House has announced. refused? Liberals! They have no honor! Did we liberate the Germans and Japanese after winning WW II? Of course. Were they occupied? Of course. It has not gone from "liberation" to "occupation" as it has always been both. This was a God (or Allah?) send for the Republicans. The withdrawl can start prior to the elections and if Iraq crumbles, the blame falls on Maliki for being too optomistic.
Does President Obama bear responsibility for the mass executions and genocide being carried out by ISIS?
No. First, Daesh (ISIS/ISIL/The Caliphate) bears responsibility for the mass executions, war crimes and genocide being carried out. The OP's question is like asking "is the rape victim responsible for being raped?" Objectivity sure is lost when someone doesn't get that the person committing the crime is primarily responsible for committing that crime. Second, the governments of al-Asad and al-Maliki are major contributors to the rise of Daesh. There was no such thing as Daesh until al-Asad created conditions in Syria (and then responded to the revolt) with brutal suppression. Note that in Syria, this consisted of (in part) heavy-handed suppression of Sunnis (and they're a big part of Daesh). In Iraq, when Nouri al-Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006, he began dismantling the key elements of the Surge campaign (Sons or Iraq/Iraq Awakening), encouraging sectarian violence against Sunnis, becoming strong allies with Iran (primarily Shiite). As a result, Sunnis feel like they are enemies of the government of Iraq, they represent a major element of Daesh within Iraq, Sunni army units (like in Ramadi) refuse to fight (Daesh was outnumbered 14-1 in Ramadi and the city fell with almost no fight). al-Maliki and the Iraqi government countered with tactics that made the problem worse (sending in Shiite militia led or advised by Iranian "volunteers"). The most effective force against Daesh has been the Kurds. One problem--the Kurds are disliked and distrusted by Sunnis and Shiites. Individuals who hated Daesh or even fought against them are now joining Daesh to fight the Kurds when they move outside of traditionally Kurdish territory to attach Daesh (which indicates that arming/supporting Kurdish Peshmerga as a way of defeating Daesh is an inherently limited strategy. We can arm the Peshmerga and PPK to defend and solidify traditionally Kurdish lands but if they pursue or attack Daesh forces outside of those Kurdish territories it becomes problematic).First and foremost, Daesh is a creation due to politics within the region. If governments were more inclusive, if Sunnis felt like they had more of a voice, if Kurds weren't hated so much by Sunnis and Shiites, there would be no Daesh. This problem isn't a military one--it's a social and political one. And until that issue is fixed, there will be some kind of insurgency that involves some level of Sunnis.
What led Iraqi President Faud Masum to remove Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki from power?
Maliki held a lot of power in the country, but was a divisive figure accused of favouritism. He was in charge of the army, police and intelligence services.Iraq is now facing chaos and civil war, with a very strong likelihood of it breaking up.The Iraqi army has proved ineffective, not because it isn't well trained or well armed, but outside of Bagdad, the troops just aren't prepared to risk their lives for the country.The Americans have opted for arming the Kurdish peshmerga, to fight Isis as proxies. This will make a Kurdish state more likely, which could create problems for the future, but the Kurds have the advantage that they aren't homicidal maniacs and are progressive. The cons are it could cause ethnic problems in Turkey and Iran, they are also a trifle socialist.Given that the other opponents capable of beating Isis are Asad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al Qaeda and the Iranians it doesn't seem unreasonable.Replacing Maliki may get a more unifying figure in charge, particularly if they are supported by the majority Shias. This will stop recruitment to Isis and possibly improve the army.If Iraq got its army fighting this would weaken the Kurds, because America wouldn't need to get involved.There is the chance that Maliki might not go quietly, but I think he has run out of friends. The new leader is likely to be Haider El-Abadi, a Shia seen as more likely to unite the country and is considered pragmatic. Its a fairly desperate step, possibly unconstitutional, but Maliki just isn't working.This is breaking news. This is the BBC analysis.Maliki spurned in new Iraq PM choice
Why did President Obama withdraw the US forces from Iraq?
Because the Bush administration had negotiated a status of forces requiring the withdrawal of US military from Iraq.I was living in Germany in 1955 when a status of forces was implement between US and Germany relative to the peace treaty ending the occupation (that is not the technical language, but that’s what happened). Very little changed, as far as I can remember, except that Germany became a member of NATO and the US-Allied forces more or less remained in place (France withdrew most of their formations for a combination of economics and DeGaulle’s prickly sense of empire). It was mutualy advantageous for Germany to keep American troops on their soil in the face of the Soviet imperial ambitions.In Iraq. the Bush administration was hung by it’s “installing democracy” petard when the issue of status of forces came up AFTER the first democratic election. Iraq just wanted us out and Bush couldn’t really say no without revealing the essential fraud of the entire enterprise. And this is what Obama inherited.As it happens, what could be seen as a setback for stabilizing the region, given that ISIS was beginning to get real traction, it has worked out better than expected, at least from my perspective, the most important thing being that a viable military capacity has emerged from the chaos of the initial ISIS rampage across the region and the reversal of their, ISIS, ambitions by a competent Iraq military, It isn’t perfect, but armies can only be forged on the anvil of lethal combat and that’s occurred.The advantage to the US is that we were invited back in on a sustainable, and advisory, basis totally to both nation’s satisfaction. We gave them a great deal of material support, but it was largely their blood that paid for their success and that was missing before we left.
Is President Obama to blame for the emergence of ISIS?
Absolutely. I love some of these answers from Obama apologists; they all come down to "blame Bush." Well, this one falls squarely on Barack Obama. The Bush administration invaded Iraq to stop the growth of terrorism. Saddam had been trolling around for a way to win greater acclaim in the terrorism world and WMDs were it. He'd been working with the small fry, funding suicide bombers and the like for years, but with Osama kicked out of Afghanistan, Saddam had a major opportunity. With a supposed disarmament that everyone knew was badly bungled (and 250 chemical weapons were found ) and enough evidence of a biological program to at least appear realistic, he knew real terrorists would be interested. But so was Bush and he invaded. The Bush administration did make a major mistake by dissolving the Iraqi military. This was a major cause of the Iraqi insurgency. However, in spite of heavy domestic opposition, Bush appointed new generals, reset the strategy, and by bringing the Sunnis into the government neutralized the vast majority of that insurgency. It was, in the words of Barack Obama, "an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant." (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/2...) That was January of 2009. According to an article from Der Spiegel, the leaders of ISIS where jailed during the Bush administration (during 2006-08). They even survived the last gasp of the US military in 2010 as military leaders tried to eliminate the worst of the terrorists before the withdrawal. But afterwards, that is during the Obama era and with a timeline driven by Obama's fumbling foreign policy, ISIS grew and formed into the terrorist threat it is today. (http://www.spiegel.de/internatio...)And lastly, a word about the withdrawal and the SOFA. Bush negotiated several of these during his administration. Each time the Iraqis asked for full judicial power over US troops and each time Bush turned them away. Each new SOFA came with an extended timeline. In 2008 Bush was trying to negotiate a six year deal, but had to accept a three year extension. In the State Department's final handover briefing they specified how to negotiate a new one with an extended deadline and very limited jurisdiction. Evidently Hilary shredded that. In Jan of 2009, ISIS's leaders were just getting out of detention. They formed, reformed and grew ISIS entirely on Obama's watch. 99% of the blame goes to Obama.
Was Saddam Hussein’s execution an essential point in establishing democracy in Iraq?
Yes because apparently it was the people of Iraq who had him executed and not just another tyrant. 'In a statement, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, "Justice, in the name of the people, has carried out the death sentence against the criminal Saddam, who faced his fate like all tyrants, frightened and terrified during a hard day which he did not expect." He also stated, "Your generous and pure land has got rid—and for ever—of the filth of the dictator and a black page of Iraq's history has been turned and the tyrant has died.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_o...
Why did the USA ask Nouri Kamil Mohammed Hasan al-Maliki to step back?
They backed him because they thought that he would form a unification government. When in office however, he continued the practice of favoring Shia and excluding Sunni. ... Thus negating the prospect of achieving a political solution to the conflict between the two.
Would Obama defy the recommendation of the top military commander in Iraq?
And if so on what basis? Obama has ZERO knowledge of Iraq's situation on the ground. Would Obama sight his postcard trip as the basis for his decision making? The top U.S. military commander in Iraq isn't buying the increasingly popular idea of a withdrawal timetable for American troops. Gen. David Petraeus , the Iraq commander, said in an interview with McClatchy that the situation in Iraq is too volatile to "project out, and to then try to plant a flag on a particular date." With violence at its lowest levels of the war, politicians in both the United States and Iraq are getting behind the idea of a departure timetable. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was first, suggesting he would have combat troops home within 16 months of Inauguration Day . The idea got a big boost during his overseas trip last week, when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki indicated support for that general timeline. http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080727/wl_mcclatchy/3002266