Quantcast
Opinion

Join the discussion: Did Obama have an influence on Iraq's collapse?

Comments

Return To Article
  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 18, 2014 6:51 p.m.

    @ Flashback

    That's funny.

    All my marine friends aren't upset at Obama at all. In fact, they recognize that he's having to deal with the disaster that the previous president handed to him.

    They don't want to "teach ISIS" a lesson. They think deeper than merely being a bully. They recognize that ISIS cannot be defeated by an army. They know that this is a continuation of a civil war that has been going on for thousands of years.

    In fact, I had a conversation with one of my marine friends. He knew as far back as 10 years ago that the war in Iraq was a lost cause. People didn't want them there, the Shiite government was so corrupt it was a joke, and our forces weren't equipped adequately.

    Perhaps your marine friends haven't actually served in Iraq? Mine have, and they know what war is like. It ain't pretty.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 18, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    "My Marine friends that served in Fallujah are pretty ticked off. And yes, to a man they blame Obama."

    Thank you for serving, but your service doesn't qualify you in anyway to make national foreign policy decisions.

    Again thank you, but who cares what a marine grunt thinks about foreign policy.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 18, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    @Flashback
    Kearns, UT

    My friends who served in DaNang and Saigon -- and the 58,000 who died in Vietnam felt the say way.

    Just like Obama,
    Richard Nixon was elected TWICE on the promise to getting us out of Vietnam.

    After 12 years of fighting and dying,
    America finally ran out of money,
    and the U.S. finally pulled out.

    Guess what happened less than 18 months later?
    North Vietnam swooped down and unified North and South Vietnam.

    The Viet Cong [Communists] won after all.

    Just like today --
    Everyone was pretyy ticked off.

    Except for WallStreet and the vast Industrial Military Complex.
    They were laughing themselves silly all the way to the BANK!

    But tell me you can't see the Gadianton Robber's pattern of ruling with blood and horror, wars and rumors of wars -- for GAIN $$$

    I didn't think so!

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    How we got here is mind boggling:

    In the 80's Reagan allied with Saddam and shipped him arms to use against Iran (remember the picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam).

    Saddam invades Kuwait, so he becomes enemy - Gulf War.

    9/11 happens, mostly done by Saudis, Saudis are allowed to leave the country without being questioned ?!

    We invade Iraq for purposes of nation building ?!

    Iraqi civil society is destroyed - civil war rages (currently).

    Iran is chief beneficiary of Iraq collapse.

    ISIS arises among Sunni population, natural enemy of Iran.

    We will now align with Iran to defeat ISIS threat.

    Does your head hurt like mine?

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    June 18, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    My Marine friends that served in Fallujah are pretty ticked off. And yes, to a man they blame Obama. They feel that their sacrifice of blood and sweat has gone for naught. Some of them want to go back and teach ISIS a lesson.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    June 18, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    ‘Join the discussion: Did Obama have an influence on Iraq's collapse?’

    =======

    Yes he did!
    And he makes the grass grow,
    and the sun shine,
    and the birds sing!

    You guys pinning everything on Obama are only showing your blind, ignorant, bias.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 18, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    Bluedevil,
    The deaths on 9/11? Purely the result of slick willey ignoring the threats from OBL. He was offered OBL two or three times and let him go.

    In the case of Iraq and the condition it was in on January 2009; an ounce of prevention was worth 47 tons of cure, but BO is/was/and always will be clueless. He could not keep a relatively stable situation stable. Too clueless.

    2 bits,
    No, open minded cannot do the same with BO. BO is totally blameless for anything in OMM’s mind. After all, OMM claims to know the intent of everyone’s heart. He is infallible.

    BobK,
    Where did we say we should be taxing the rich less? Nice straw argument. Is your case so weak you have to resort to arguing against untruths only you put forth?

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    June 18, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    re: Open Minded Mormon

    "No -- That was Presidents George H.W. and his little boy George W. Bush who would be responsible for that."

    Agreed. But, you forgot about Cheney's greed & Halliburton's bottom line.

    re: GaryO
    [“If we left the residual force behind, we would not be facing the crisis today,” according to John McCain.]

    Because, it would probably be worse if there were still a large presence there.

    The silver lining to this cloud (current crisis in Iraq) is the US & Iran are talking.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 18, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    Debate is good, and this is a debate America should have.

    The argument from the right seems to have morphed into an apologist argument for military solutions in the middle east even to the point of assuming America should and can democratize the region,then nit pick the details casting blame when it doesn't work.

    Most regional experts are in agreement with the other argument that the ideal of democratizing the middle east is a pipe dream and not obtainable by force.

    If America chooses not to actively engage in nation building it doesn't mean we are turning a blind eye to the dangers of terrorists ( I only use that term for understanding, even though it's a poor word to describe the threats to us)in the region.

    Last point..aligning our selves with the moderates is an academic argument, and a fools errand in reality. We've tried that twice. The first time in in Afghanistan in the 90's and they turned out to be the Taliban. Then again in Iraq during the famous surge, which simply was more boots on the ground and paying off the Sunni's to not shoot us.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    June 18, 2014 2:53 a.m.

    Avenue
    Vernal, UT
    "Obama was raised by an Islam stepfather. Today he seems oddly sympathetic to the ISIS and many other Islam terrorist organizations, with the release of Taliban prisoners and doing nothing to help the situation in Iraq.
    Coincidence?"

    --- Really? Maybe check whether your thoughts are what Jesus would suggest, please.

    GaryO
    Virginia Beach, VA
    "Open Minded Mormon -
    GW fought this war without increasing taxes. In fact he reduced taxes, especially for the highest earners."

    --- Please tell us where the $3 trillion cost of that totally un-necessary war went, if not to debt. Cheney and Bush's rich friends made billions and paid lower taxes.

    I am always at a loss when I read regular citizens telling us that taxing the rich less is good for America. Then, they tend to complain about the debt.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    June 17, 2014 8:38 p.m.

    GaryO posted early on that to avoid war one should never vote Republican. I wonder who was in the White House during the start and height of the Vietnam war...let's see, memory says it was John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Hummm...

    Also, Bush had many democrats sign off on going to Iraq, including the infamous John Kerry, who "voted for the war before he voted against it" and the ever-talented "what does it matter now" Hillary.

    I don't think the wars were justified, either in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or Irag, but you have to admit that BOTH parties have supported all wars mentioned. (After all, war is good for business and helps the economy, especially if you can sell arms to both sides of the conflict, right? ..sarcasm..)

    It wasn't the brightest thing Obama did to release 5 master-minds of terrorism for one soldier that was likely a deserter, but he had to justify winning his Nobel Peace Prize somehow. (He certainly stood up to Putin in the Ukraine, too, didn't he? ..more sarcasm..)

    We've got a few years left of Obama. Hopefully we have a country left when he finally finishes.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    June 17, 2014 8:28 p.m.

    I'm not a fan of the President but this is mostly a GOP/Bush mess hook line and sinker. The main issue I have with the President was him staying there at all.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 17, 2014 8:12 p.m.

    Ironically, more pieces on the Op Ed page are prefaced with the phrase "Join the discussion...'. Profanity, excessive verbosity and off topics aside, not everyone gets that chance.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 17, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    @2 bits
    "It seems some people's only concern is that none of the mess get associated with the great Obama"
    To be fair, this was an editorial titled "Did Obama have an influence on Iraq's collapse? So why wouldn't the discussion be about if this is Obama's fault or not?

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2014 5:32 p.m.

    The US dithering on support of a moderate opposition in Syria was the beginning of the Iraq debacle. It was very short sighted and we are paying the price.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 17, 2014 5:24 p.m.

    the "truth" is this is all the result of multiples of administrations over time, all culminating in these events. Each administration has its finger prints well imprinted on these events. You can step backwards and find fault in each, and things each did that was right.

    For example, Reagan is largely responsible for arming up these groups in an effort to have a proxy war with Russia in Afghanistan. Bush 1 stopped short of regime change... and was criticized for it. Clinton went after terrorist, but at times in lack luster or ineffective ways. Bush two was advised by people who had motives other than just bringing democracy to the east, and many suffered and died for a false narrative. Obama naively thought reason would be impactful - under estimating the long tradition of tribal violence that only a dictator could keep under control. Each of these only skims the surface of US policy choices that helped breed these events.

    So to say Bush caused this..... or Obama caused this only reflects a highly simplistic review of what got us here.

    But that doesn't stop the talking heads in the media though - does it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon,

    Ummmm... I already said Bush is responsible for the war in Iraq... I don't know what more I can say.

    I said, "Bush has plenty of responsibility for this. He was the President who made the decision".... and explained that he was responsible for the decision to start the war, and what happened during his administration (EVERYTHING that happened during his Administration).

    He's also responsible for the economic meltdown, and the bailouts (which Obama continued in his administration).

    There... I said Bush is responsible for EVERYTHING that happened during his administration...

    Can you do the same for Obama? I doubt it....

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    @CraigClark,

    Re: "Obama has been trying to push us away from pre-emptive war and back into the policy of containment that saw us through the cold war"...

    Should we expect 40 years of detente with AlQaida?

    During the cold-war... there was no declared war, just tension between nations, no actual war. AlQaida has declared war against America in no unclear terms. It's not the same as a cold-war.

    If we just pretend if we are not at war with them (even though they think they are at war with us) everything will be OK... we are right back where we were on 9/10/01 and have learned nothing.

    I'm not saying we make it into a real war. I'm just saying the President, his Secretary of State, and the intelligence agencies need to stay on top of things like this (so they can act early, when diplomatic options still exist)... Iraq, Iran, Korea, China, Ukraine, etc, can't come as a total surprise to our government leaders! They totally didn't see this coming.. they thought AlQaida was dead... THAT mind-set.. is the failure, and the problem IMO.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 17, 2014 3:50 p.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Each President is responsible for what happens during his administration...

    2:36 p.m. June 17, 2014

    ========

    Then why can't you just come right and say that the Invasions and occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq, $11 Trillion in un-funded Wars [debt], entire U.S. economic meltdowm, the WallStreet [Hand]Bailouts...belong to GW Bush?

    Your complete lack of integrity to everything you just said has me utterly confused.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 17, 2014 3:19 p.m.

    UtahBlueDevil,

    "....Perennially I think we were justified in going after the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Iraq, not so much...."
    ______________________________

    I see the decision to attack Iraq as a test case of the Bush Doctrine policy of pre-emptive war in the post-911 world. The idea was to bring down an enemy that the world readily recognized as a tyrant (Saddam Hussein) and replace him with a model democratic government that the rest of the Islamic world would want to emulate. As we found out, things don’t always work in reality the way they do in theory.

    Obama has been trying to push us away from pre-emptive war and back into the policy of containment that saw us through the cold war. It has its own challenges in testing our resolve over the long term.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2014 2:36 p.m.

    This is BAD (for Iraq AND for America) no matter how you twist it.

    It seems some people's only concern is that none of the mess get associated with the great Obama. That's so lame. Who cares if America has a new terrorist danger to deal with... just so long as you can blame it on Bush (and NONE on Obama)... that's all that matters???

    ========

    Bush has plenty of responsibility for this. He was the President who made the decision (with Congress and UN approval) to begin military action to end Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. That left a power vacuum in Iraq. Same vacuum occurred after the Gulf War (which stopped short of removing Saddam Hussein from power, but decimated his military after he invaded Kuwait).

    After the Gulf War was over, America left, and hoped the people would throw Saddam out... But instead there was a violent Sunni-vs-Shia purge after the Gulf War. There was another after the military victory in Iraq (which resulted in years of insurgent sunni-shia violence in Iraq). And now this one.

    Each President is responsible for what happens during his administration...

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 17, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    Lost in DC.... you said "terrorist deaths are higher under BO than they were under bush."

    How do you reconcile that statement. How many Americans died in 9/11? Now , how many Americans have died at Terrorist hands since Obama became President. I would love to see your math. If you are talking terrorist attach world wide.... the majority of those happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan..... and who destabilized that area with war...? Was that Obama?

    Perennially I think we were justified in going after the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Iraq, not so much. But to pretend by any stretch of the imagination that the instability in that region of the world is Obama's fault... you really have to do some stretching.

    "BO apologists care not for truth and history, just BO and hating bush"

    Two things... I am not sure truth means what you think it means.... and I am pretty sure both sides are equally culpable here of massaging the truth to their own likeness.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    Vietnam's debacle was Johnsons not Nixons. For more than obvious reasons Bush owns the failure or successes IRAQ War.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 17, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    To "CHS 85" that is because when I went there they rejected me for being too old.

    I don't remember reading in Obama's biography about his time in the military. He has advocated for war and has sent soldiers out to die, yet he has no military experience. Are you going to write a letter to him and tell him that he should at least get one of his daughters to enlist?

    But those are just side issues. Tell us what you think about the fact that Obama closed down the Prison and released the men that are now the leaders of the rebel group ISIS? Does that make you proud to support him? Are you proud of Clinton and Kerry voting for the war, then voting every chance they got to keep funding it? Are you proud of the fact that the Democrats you chose to represent you have, for 7 years, kept funding the wars?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 17, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    Did BO have an influence?
    Absolutely.
    This is a continuation of the “Arab Spring”, and the way he projects weakness rather than strength definitely contributed to the Iraqi collapse.

    But, of course, the usual BO apologists are out in force, decrying the DN for a supposed witch hunt. Anything that shines a poor light on BO generates their cries of “FAUX NEW!” “right-wing radio” and their other usual boogeymen.

    Face it, guys, BO is out of his depth and the world is a more dangerous place as a result.

    Open minded,
    No, sorry, not the bushes. It was BO

    And you know the thoughts and intents of liberty or?’s heart? I thought only Christ knew the thoughts and intents of men’s hearts. Who does that say you think you are?

    Steamroller,
    terrorist deaths are higher under BO than they were under bush. We can separate combat and terror deaths. Keep score, but keep it correctly.

    Regis, Redshirt
    BO apologists care not for truth and history, just BO and hating bush

    CHS85
    I seriously doubt you were at the recruiting center. Leave it to a lib to make something up to try to score points.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 17, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701

    I looked for you at the local Armed Forces Recruiting Center and didn't see you. Shouldn't those who advocate war be the first in line to serve?

  • liberty or ...? Ogden, UT
    June 17, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    And as for the rest of you trying to Hillary Clinton (What difference does it make) guilt me about I'm not a veteran. I have family who are vets and friends who served as dear to me as any brother.I waas against remaining in Iraq from the start.Since 9/11 I said the only 2 ways to fight this war are 1. go in and get out no nation building or aid. 2.Or you better be prepared for a 100 yr investment in blood, time, and capital because you are fighting an ideology(something I said then Americans don't have the guts for.)Anything else would end in defeat and look like vietnam.Pull them all home I say but don't try and whitewash Obama and the democrats who with the republicans let this become the mess it has. As I said we are all to blame.

  • liberty or ...? Ogden, UT
    June 17, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    Wow speak out and the trolls converge. I'll face the facts you should as well.1st Steam roller you cherry picked your casualty data. Yes out of the 4082 casualties of Iraqi freedom more are definatley under bush however when you add in the number of from enduring freedom it drops to a difference of 1000 and your number does not reflect also Iraqi security and military supposed allies we trained (nor coalition numbers I might add) Also at the height of Bushes Casualties his primarily falls under under open hostilities and military action(exception being surge) comparatively to Obamas which accumulated under a declaration by Bush once and Obama twice that victory had been achieved.Which is worse casualties accumulated in open combat or ignorant denial of reality. Oh those pesky facts that can't be cherry picked huh. lets try for some honesty here people. Don't like those huh Noodlekaboodle and Gary O don't fit the one track mind ideology of the left does it.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 17, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    To the Obama appolgists. The leader of the Iraq rebels was released whe Obama decided to release Abu Bakr al Baghdadi when he closed down the prison that the US military had in Iraq. That prison also contained others that are now leading the ISIS rebels in Iraq.

    Why do you ignore the fact that Obama has RELEASED from US custody some of the worst terrorists? Shouldn't Obama take some blame for that?

    We know that you liberals have been giddy since the withdrawl from Iraq. But have stopped to think if it has made the world safer? I know that you don't like long drawn out wars, but Hilary Clinton believed in the justification for the war, and has voted to continue to fund and remain there. Why blame Republicans only when for the past 7 years the liberal politicians could have stopped the war at any time?

    I know it hurts your world view, and does not conform with your hatred of Republicans, but that is the truth. Obama released the leaders of ISIS from US custody, and Democrats have continued to fund the war for the past 7 years since they took control of the Senate.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    We are already calling it a collapse? Is that the reverse of "Mission Accomplished." Just a little hyperbole?

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    June 17, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    Whether or not we should have went in became irrelevant once we sent the first troops across the Iraq border. Common knowledge should have told our leaders that the only way to prepare the Iraqi people to rule themselves in some form of Democratic Gov't was to get them to the point where they no longer did exactly what the Tribal Leaders told them to and actually thought for themselves. And the only way that is going to happen is to ensure stability and fair elections while education the whole populace for 3 generations. Even when the current leaders are gone those who are about to replace them will still be too tightly ingrained with the existing belief of how things should be done. You must get those who are being born today into their 50's with all of those born after them also learning how to think and vote based on their own convictions.
    That is why I say 3 generations to create some type of Democratic Gov't.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    June 17, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    Noodlekaboodle -- Don't you mean the "lamestream" media? Gotta get your right wing vernacular correct.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 17, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    @GaryO
    But but but.....I don't like those facts. They don't fit with my world view. That is why I am declaring those facts ineligible. That's right, any facts I disagree with are no longer facts, they are propaganda by the mainstream media.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 17, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon -

    "Are YOU willing to increase your taxes to pay for the last 12 year debacle for sending someone else or someone else's kids to do your dirty work for you?"

    GW fought this war without increasing taxes. In fact he reduced taxes, especially for the highest earners.

    Maybe, that's why "Conservatives" today are so completely irresponsible and out of touch with reality. They think they can start wars almost on a whim.

    Why not? Tney have been able to pass the responsibility for paying for wars down to future generations. It's the "Conservative" way.

    For them, starting a war is no more consequential than playing a video game.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    Re: "Did Obama have an influence on Iraq's collapse?"....

    The question SHOULD be... If he didn't have influence... why?

    ========

    IMO there's TOO MANY times this President tells us he didn't know what was going on and couldn't or wouldn't use his influence.

    He's the PRESIDENT! He's supposed to know what's going on (in Iraq, Iran, and other countries). He can't keep saying, "I didn't know anything, I'm just as surprised as you are"!

    ======

    The United States has interest in the cities that have already fallen. America (and the people who died to free the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein) have interest in ISIS terrorists not taking over Baghdad again.

    This is a situation where the President of the United States can't pretend he knew nothing, had no influence, and can't do anything...

    This is not something that can catch an American President by surprise. Where is our Secretary of State, and our Intelligence Agencies? Spying on AMERICANS and using the IRS to defeat political opposition?

    Our President can't keep being caught off-guard.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 17, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    Wow, the "Conservative" commentators on this board sure make a lot of stuff up.

    No, the "Death toll of US casualties (Under Obama) in 4yrs surppasses 8yrs of Bush and Cheney."

    Of the 4,484 American deaths in Iraq, only 264 occurred from 2009 onward. That's less than 6% of the total. And that means that over 94% of American lives lost in Iraq occurred during Bush's administration.

    And no, Obama did not just arbitrarily pull our troops out of Iraq.

    He pulled them out according to the timetable agreed to by GW Bush in 2008. Look up SOFA.

    "The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011." - Wikipedia

    Face the facts.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 17, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    liberty or ...?
    Ogden, UT

    =========

    Alot of talking there,
    so I gotta ask it --

    1. Are YOU a Veteran?
    2. Are YOU willing to increase your taxes to pay for the last 12 year debacle for sending someone else or someone else's kids to do your dirty work for you?

    If you can't answer affirmative to either of those 2 simple questions --
    Then you [or any of the other HATEriots about to chime in]
    really have no creditibiltiy to be saying much...

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 17, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    @ Avenue, your comment is bizarre. Not only was Obama not raised by his father, there is nothing to suggest sympathy for ISIS. Such attacks are solely to attack the President and no other purpose. They contribute absolutely nothing to the dialogue on this issue.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    June 17, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    Avenue has been listening to too much hate radio.

  • sg newhall, CA
    June 17, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    The liberal minded will once again place blame on George Bush, it is what they have been taught to do. On the other hand, I agree that at face value it might have been a huge error in American foreign policy and intelligence to have ever entered into the conflict without a comprehensive plan of attack. These people might want freedoms like those enjoyed by Americans (well, until Obama took the throne of tyrannical power), but this is the middle east. A culture unlike ours. A mindset not even close to ours. Yet, the blame is now on Obama, he has been in power for over 6 years and his lack of leadership, a foreign policy that is nonexistent, his leanings towards Islam/Muslim causes, his giving weapons and billions to his "people" speaks volumes as to his involvement. Have we forgotten or simply refuse to remember that in his own words he said in essence that is the winds of change occurs in favor of the muslims, he will join the side of those muslims. Obama, folks, is a muslim. He is responsible for the current mess in Iraq.

  • regis Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    The decision to invade Iraq was questionable. Nevertheless, that decision was made and American's gave their lives and nearly a trillion dollars to create a reasonably stable political climate in which the terrorists had largely been defeated. This was the situation inherited by Obama. That reality could have been maintained at relatively low cost. Instead, Obama chose to completely abandon everything that had been gained at such incredibly high cost. And now Iraq descends into chaos and provides a fertile training ground for terrorists who will soon be launching attacks on America.

    Obama and his defenders can continue to blame it all on Bush. Truth and history will show otherwise.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    June 17, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    Obama was raised by an Islam stepfather. Today he seems oddly sympathetic to the ISIS and many other Islam terrorist organizations, with the release of Taliban prisoners and doing nothing to help the situation in Iraq.

    Coincidence?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 17, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    There have been news reports of Iraqi soldiers not putting up much of a fight and even some reports of them laying down their arms and going over to the other side. Is this what we have to show for the billions of taxpayer’s dollars that went into equipping and training them for over a decade? It’s their country. They have to care enough about it to want to fight for it.

  • David Centerville, UT
    June 17, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    20 years of American blindness would mean 12 years of Democratic presidential involvement (Clinton and Obama) and 8 years of Republican.

    Both parties are complicit. But as the article stated, Obama's Middle East policy has been a disaster. The same could be said for about every policy of this administration.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    June 17, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    Liberty,
    Are you prepared to send your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and those coming after them to fight in the Middle East?
    Perhaps you do not have children?
    You know that will be what happens should we continue trying to save those folks who have a totally different way of looking at life than we do.
    War has always been their answer to everything.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    June 17, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    We never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Its time we focus our own problems and quit trying to fix every other countries problems.

  • liberty or ...? Ogden, UT
    June 17, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    and the usual president defenders come out to absolve Obama of any responsibility again with half truth history. GH Bush in the persian gulf conflict liberated Kuwait and pushed Saddam back to Iraq while democrats like clinton were more than willing to allow the atrocities to continue. GH Bush tried to convince the allied forces of the necessity of going into Iraq and bringing Saddam to justice then. We the American people dug our own grave shirked respopnsibility and said no. Fine but that means you get the consequances which 8 years of Clinton brought us the food for oil scandals doublecrossing corruption of allies like China ,france and businesses who secretly propped Saddam up while putting up a front of opposition to the dictator. Yes GW Bush did take us into Iraq again but when he left the surge had worked despite the lefts constsnct daily death toll number headlines (which ironically disappeared with Obama) Since Obama took office-Terrorist attacks increased 150%. Death toll of US casualties in 4yrs surppasses 8yrs of Bush and Cheney. Insurgent leader was released by Obama. claimed premature stability and withdrew our forces against all sound military advice. were all to blame

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 17, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    “If we left the residual force behind, we would not be facing the crisis today,” according to John McCain.

    So if McCain were President, we would be experiencing a perpetual troop surge in Iraq, because there is no possible way a small "residual force" could withstand the onslaught.

    We would be expending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting a war of attrition, against guerrilla forces in their own land.

    No thanks Senator McCain. I much prefer "the crisis today" over the crisis you would have us experience.

    Thank Goodness for the patriotism and the wisdom of the Obama administration.

    Think about it folks, John McCain is representative of Republican leadership, and he favors a constant state of war in a foreign land to prop up an ill-conceived Republican attempt at nation building that should never have been tried in the first place.

    There is a way to prevent this sort of thing in the future.

    NEVER vote Republican.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 17, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    Join the discussion: Did Obama have an influence on Iraq's collapse?

    =======

    No -- That was Presidents George H.W. and his little boy George W. Bush who would be responsible for that.

    BTW & FYI -- Pres. Obama is President of the United States of AMERICA, not Iraq.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 17, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    The people who are urging us to get involved in Iraq now are the very same people who got us into war there in the first place. It should be noted that they we wrong on every single point they raised. Why in the world should we listen now?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 17, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    So the Deseret News is compiling a collection of neo-con attacks on President Obama to coalesce the arguments. Yeah, everything was groovy in 2008 in Iraq. Accepting your premise, then President Obama was right to honor the Bush deal to get out and let Iraq govern itself. But McCain, and the Deseret News, want perpetual occupation. These are the same folks who wanted to arm rebels in Syria, the exact same folks who are now leading the rebellion in Iraq. Even in hindsight, the President looks so much smarter than do you. And yet, because he can't solve the Shiite-Sunni fight, that goes back a thousand years, you choose to attack and rely on the same tactics that blew the lid off of this in the first place and is now even more threatening. Pity you and others didn't have more courage to stand up to Bush and Cheney in 2003. Now we are gong to pay an even greater price, one that will be with use for at least many decades (like our overthrow of a democratic government in Iran in 1953).