As one who prides himself on paying attention, and cataloging whatever snippets of information I can to piece together what I consider to be the truth, I was overjoyed to hear Hillary Clinton’s response to the Donald’s diatribe about who created Isis.
It has been bandied about and ballyhooed by all of the great unwashed, Fox News in particular, that due to a lack of strength, leadership, ignoring of international law, that President Obama just cut and ran in Iraq. Finally the truth of the matter has been relayed to tens of millions through the debate. Not only were we asked to leave by the current Iraq government, they refused to give our soldiers immunity if they stayed.
“When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible,” al-Maliki told reporters in Baghdad. “The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.”
So there it is, the U.S. didn’t feel comfortable operating in Iraq without being given carte-blanche to kill, maim and destroy without repercussions. As a result, we took our tanks and bombs and went home. Whether or not al-Maliki’s decision ultimately played into helping Obama to achieve his goal of reducing our troop levels in the Middle East is not known by us commoners.
Could Obama have had Iraqi leaders whacked until he found one that would sign the immunity agreement? I guess so. Maybe that’s where the Repubs criticism comes from. We should just kill leaders until we find one that agrees with our desires. I am personally glad that Obama did not choose this course of action.
Setting the record straight on the Iraq troop withdrawal was just one of the many good things that came out in the debate. Tomorrow we’ll talk a little bit about one of the reasons al-Maliki wouldn’t give immunity.