Bachmann Responds to President Obama’s Decision to Pull U.S. Troops from Iraq

I haven’t reprinted a press release in its entirety for a while, but this one earns it. It’s hard not to agree with Bachmann’s statement. I think Obama’s lack of international skill set this country back years. We will pay for a long time.

Urbandale, Iowa – Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s announcement to pull United States troops out of Iraq by the end of the year:

“Today’s announcement that we will remove all of our forces from Iraq is a political decision and not a military one; it represents the complete failure of President Obama to secure an agreement with Iraq for our troops to remain there to preserve the peace and demonstrates how far our foreign policy leadership has fallen. In every case where the United States has liberated a people from dictatorial rule, we have kept troops in that country to ensure a peaceful transition and to protect fragile growing democracies. We will now have fewer troops in Iraq than we have in Honduras – despite a costly and protracted war.

“President Obama’s decision represents the end of the era of America’s influence in Iraq and the strengthening of Iran’s influence in Iraq with no plan to counter that influence. We have been ejected from a country by the people that we liberated and that the United States paid for with precious blood and treasure. The administration claims that we got exactly what we needed, but today’s announcement demonstrates otherwise. The United States needed a working democratic partnership in Iraq and we should have demanded that Iraq repay the full cost of liberating them given their rich oil revenues. I call on the president to return to the negotiating table with Iraq and lead from the front and not from weakness in Iraq and in the world.”

Comments

  1. You are unknowing if you agree that leaving Iraq after 9 years is an Obama failure.

  2. You are unknowing if you think investing 9 years in a country only to walk away isn’t a failure.

  3. J. Strupp says:

    Bachman assumes that leaving a skeleton crew of U.S. military personnel will have any bearing on whether or not Iraq is politically influenced by the Iranians today or in the future. Besides, how much of a Democracy is Iraq if we’re controlling their foreign policy anyway?

    How many years are we going to ensure a peaceful transition and protect a fragile growing democracy? 30? 40?

    Our invasion of Iraq was a complete waste of finanical/human resources built on a lie. The sooner we get our kids back home and out of that hellhole the better.

  4. when the idea of invading Iraq started my Republican friends were against it. i was against it because there was no real evidence that the fake general in charge there had no military power to harm us. Iran, much closer, did not even flinch. we were promised oil and retribution, admiration, respect and honor. none of that happened. granted , our intel was partially to blame, our rush to judgment was a mistake. (i.e., vietnam). and i thought vietnam was another attack against the USSR. no regrets, Presidents Johnson and Nixon fell for it). THE TIME HAS COME FOR ALL AMERICANS TO BE PROUD OF THE USA AND SUPPORT OUR GOVERNMENT.

  5. I agree, it will be nice to have the troops home. I disagree that after a 9 year investment we should cut and run.

  6. Cindy, what further investment in US blood and treasure would you make and what would you hope to gain by it?
    Do you imagine that an occupied country will like us? Perhaps you imagine that there is treasure, friendship, or alliances available that will further US goals? Or perhaps you imagine that if we spend enough time occupying the country that we will be loved for the good deeds we have done since Saddam was toppled?

  7. I would “imagine” that a partnership could be arranged for the blood and treasure that were shared. This administration was unable to manage such, and it’s a shame. A literal shame.

  8. You don’t cut and run after 9 years.

    You cut your losses and move on.

  9. Cindy. With all do respect, you must not have a loved one over there in harms way.

  10. Sam, what about those who will be in harms way once we are forced into a war with Iran? How about those in Afghanistan where the enemy will be emboldened now that we’ve had to run away from Iraq?

    I hate war. Anyone who has read this blog knows that. But I also hate decisions that cripple the U.S.

  11. Randy in Richmond says:

    Leaving Iraq would not be an Obama failure. Leaving Iraq now is an Obama failure. Since failure or success has already been brought up several times in this discussion, let’s point out that Obama has already failed once before in Iraq–he vigorously opposed the Insurgency which was an unqualified success. This mission saved countless Iraqi and coalition lives and is the very reason we are able to remove troops on any level now. For the President to take any credit for this is less than genuine.

    As late as August the Obama administration was in negotiations with Iraq concerning the troop withdrawal schedule. This schedule was announced 18 months ago, by the way. The issue of immunity for our troops has been on the table for at least that long and the Obama administration announced several times they were negotiating to get that done. They failed. I would suggest an arbitrary political pullout date, not favored by the military at all, was the motivating factor in this scenero. It has nothing to do with how many troops stayed in Iraq–just as in S. Korea, Germany, and Japan it is a prudent part of the withdrawal process to protect our interests.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9775961

  12. “In every case where the United States has liberated a people from dictatorial rule, we have kept troops in that country” – Bachmann

    I guess Libya doesn’t count.

  13. Randy in Richmond says:

    We liberated Libya ? When did we do that ?

  14. Randy, that was exceptionally well done. 🙂

  15. the point is that we need troops at home to protect our borders and ourselves just in case. the expenses of wars is not prudent. see USSR financial failures. this is not germany and japan. we now have a nucleur world. we got no oil from Iraq. not even a contract that i know of. stay too long and they will hate you. See history of Americans, Brits in China and India. there is so much fraud and theft in Iraq , and elsewhere, that our own military does not trust any of them anymore. I’m sure there are more tanks and weapons there than in WI. someone tell me what our well trained and well equipped military will do there except provide police protection. all my local conservative friends say get out of I and A.

  16. cont. remind me again why we went to war in Iraq. there are enough pols to share the blame. but what did this have to do with 9/11 ? not one of the suicide bombers came from there, i think. no americans were killed there, i think. we gave money to them, i think. Iran was not afraid of the fake general, i think, and his crimes were mostly against his own countrymen, i think. there were bigger fish to fry, i know.

  17. Anonymous Politico says:

    We should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. No WMD’s and no link to 9/11. I hardly believe we went into Iraq just because they had a ruthless dictator. There are plenty of them out there for the picking if that’s the case.

    Now this… Afghanistan says they’ll support Pakistan if they go to war with the United States.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44998270#.TqNkAHIg-T8

    So, how is that going to work?

    Why have we been at war for 10 years?

    Dwight Eisenhower’s Warning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

  18. Randy in Richmond says:

    We went to war because our and other country’s best intelligence indicated there were WMD’s in Iraq. We had videos of Saddam using them against his own people. He had thumbed his nose at UN Resolutions and refused inspections. He had attacked another sovereign nation previously. Forty countries joined together against Saddam. None of the other 39 countries were direct victims of 911.

    Bringing up now, as Monday morning quarterbacks, the complex and controversial reasons these 40 countries went to war with Iraq has little to no bearing on when and how we should withdraw.
    But we would not have gone to war if Congress had not authorized us to do so. The Senate vote was 77-23 and the House vote 250-183. Each of these votes was by a wider margin than the vote to enter Iraq after it had attacked Kuwait in 1990. Put another way 77 % of the Senate and 69 % of the House voted to give the President the authority to enter Iraq.

    But more important was who voted for this . The current Vice President voted for it. The current Secretary of State voted for it. The current Senate Majority leader voted for it. The Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004 voted for it. The Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2004 voted for it. So did Dodd,Feinstein, Kohl and Schumer–among others.

    Changing the subject of this post from how we should exit Iraq as to why we went there shows that some have 20/20 hindsight. Don’t we all.

  19. Chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction. We shouldn’t invade other countries solely because they used nerve gas on their people years ago.

    Who cares if Iraq attacked other nations previously? That had no bearing on our second invasion of Iraq.

    Several nations joined our effort in Iraq. Based on Powell’s testimony. Which was based on doctored intelligence. As did Congress.

    Those facts shouldn’t be ignored when forming an opinion on the current topic in my opinion.

  20. Randy in Richmond says:
  21. J. Strupp says:

    So you’re trying to tell me that we should invade other countries because they have nerve gas?

    The reasons for our peremptive invasion of Iraq change with the wind even today.

  22. Strupp, I think the point is well made. You have an opinion that chemical weapons are not WMD, but they indeed are considered WMD. You don’t have to like it, but it does negate your argument.

  23. Anonymous Politico says:

    In my humble opinion, I believe designs were laid for the invasion of Iraq by the neo-conservatives before 9/11. The Project for a New American Century put out a report in September 2000 which called for the invasion of Iraq to solidify America’s foothold in the Middle East. The same report suggested that the only way there could be an impetus for such a move against Iraq is if there was another Pearl Harbor style attack on America.

    9/11 served as that impetus, and it wasn’t more than 9 days after those attacks that The New American Century sent a letter to President George Bush asking him to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power.

    A summary of this organization and its reports can be found here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

    You will also find it interesting that a number of Bush Administration officials were involved in this organization, or signed statements in support of their views, including Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

    I am suspicious of the Bush Administration’s intentions to invade Iraq beginning on March 20, 2003. There is no doubt in my mind that Secretary of State Colin Powell was used by neo-conservative forces within the administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) to lend credibility to the notion that Iraq was a far bigger danger than it really was.

    In other words, a truly dangerous nuclear-armed Iraq was just wishful thinking.

    Having spent enough time in corporate America, I know that if you want to fire someone, you can always find a reason. It’s easy to find out how an employee might have misrepresented their background in some way in the application process (no matter how insignificant), or maybe they just spent “too much” time on Facebook while at work. You can always find a reason to fire someone.

    Unfortunately, the same goes for invading countries. I’m uncomfortable with the idea that we invaded Iraq because they were going to start a nuclear war with its neighbors or the United States. That reality came home to roost when we finally toppled the Iraqi government didn’t find much of a nuclear program.

    At the time we made a decision to go into Iraq, Iran had a FAR MORE advanced nuclear weapons program than Iraq. The same goes for North Korea.

    Why didn’t we invade Iran or North Korea first?

    The American voter needs to start asking better questions of its candidates. Just because a presidential candidate promises to cut taxes and nominate a conservative to the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t make it ok.

    We’ve spent north of $1 trillion for these wars and I feel like all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

    I respect differing points of view and I’m not trying to incite divisiveness. I’m just hopeful that we don’t repeat some of the same mistakes that we’ve made over the last 10 years, nor to we elect leaders who will embrace the wrong path for our country.

  24. “We will now have fewer troops in Iraq than we have in Honduras”

    The proper response is not to have more troops in Iraq than Honduras, but rather to pull out all of our troops in Honduras. Hell… why do we still have troops in Japan and Germany?! They’ve fully transitioned themselves since WWII… and yet we’re still there.

  25. Well said Anon. And now that the post 9/11 blind fear has begun to fade, I think most Americans are coming around to the real reasons we went to war with Iraq.

    “That reality came home to roost when we finally toppled the Iraqi government didn’t find much of a nuclear program.”

    …or a biological weapons program. And we found a few hundred corroded, degraded, unusable chemical warheads that looked like they hadn’t been touched in a decade (which are classified as WMD’s by the U.S. government but are not WMD’s “IMO”. 🙂

  26. Ok, so if we give into the idea that it’s done us no good to be there – and I do have an isolationist tendency so it’s not hard for me – why don’t we cut and run from every other place we land troops outside our own boundary? I haven’t heard much complaining here about anything other than Iraq.

  27. Anonymous Politico says:

    I’m ok with a systematic review of each of our commitments around the world.

    It’s going to happen, regardless. Because at some point the Chinese will stop buying U.S. treasuries and we won’t be able to print anymore money, so all our troops will have to come home because we cannot afford to pay them.

  28. And the economy won’t support their employment, and unemployment will increase.

    Well heck, if we’re talking happy thoughts, might as well toss that in there.

  29. Anonymous Politico says:

    That’s why we need puppies in this world.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHAshi4vdbg

  30. Randy in Richmond says:

    Looking back
    If that radar operator in 1941 hadn’t thought those blips on his screen were American planes Pearl Harbor might have ended differently… If only Custer had waited for reinforcements… If the Japanese had followed up their initial attacks at Midway… If John Kennedy had not gone to Dallas…If Steve Bartman hadn’t interfered with that foul ball…If only JFK had not used his best intel in supporting the Bay of Pigs freedom fighters.

    Many in the know in 2003, including the prominent Democrats previously listed and other world leaders and intel agencies, signed on to making sure Saadam wasn’t up to anything. None of those people are (were) neo-conservatives ; they looked at the best info at the time and made a decision.

    Opinions, beliefs, suggestions, suspicions, and doubts are just what they imply. If going into Iraq was a neo-conservative idea backed by a few Americans belonging to some organization that no longer exists, then they had to be the most brilliant people in the world to fool the governments of 40 nations and the United Nations. If having a 20/20 hindsight discussion of this issue years after the fact with information that was either unavailable or incorrect at the time makes one feel good about a specific agenda, go for it. It has nothing to do with our exit policy in Iraq, the theme of this post.

  31. 1. we were led to believe that the invasion of Iraq was to punish the invaders of 9/11.
    2. we were led to believe that the invasion would be financed, in part, by oil we would get.
    3.we were led to believe our intel was made up of superstars.
    4. we were led to believe the fake general could actually cause physical harm to us.
    5. we were led to believe all the Iraq people were our friends.

    in every was there are mistakes and blunders. in every war the cost of lives and money is more than we thought.

    it is a military strategy to retreat and not a dishonor.

    the priority of our military should be our homeland, not a distant place.

  32. Randy in Richmond says:

    Don’t use “we” for me Dick. I was never led to believe 1, 2, 3, or 5. I always felt # 4 coulda been true–still do. Retreat has nothing to do with this discussion.

  33. the federal administration said no. 1 to 4 said all of the above at one time or another. i am over it just like i was over korea after my time in service. how many american troops do you guys want there

  34. I can’t do that right now, anonpoli – bad news on one of the grandpuppies. Some days the down swoops of the roller coaster aren’t much fun. 🙁

  35. “And the economy won’t support their employment, and unemployment will increase.”

    Now there’s a good reason for keeping our men and women in harms way. 😉

    Yes, in harms way. There’s been 49 US Military fatalities in Iraq so far this year.

    http://icasualties.org/

  36. Anonymous "Anonpoli" Politico says:

    I will now call myself…. “Anonpoli”.

  37. there is something missing in this discussion. those who have been the military service know how terrible and ugly was is. there are no rules of ethics so to speak and mistakes are made all the time. we have a commander in chief and a military staff to guide us. certainly, they will sometimes disagree. every war in our history has been imperfect. our will for freedom is so strong that we will fight for it, IF NECESSARY. it just is not necessary to fight these wars. aid and comfort is ok but the killing fields are not. BTW, i am for some type of compulsory military or civilian service so that we are ready and prepared. about being in other countries, i suspect our military is there for a reason, to protect our interests. but they are not in the battlefield.