GOP Candidates' Ignorant, Dangerous Responses to Iraq

Campaigns are when some crazy things are said -- particularly during primaries. In an effort to one-up opponents and please the party base, candidates will inevitably make some outlandish claims.

However, when it comes to the drawdown in Iraq, the Republican candidates for president have gone from outlandish to ignorant and irresponsible. If any of them actually believes what they've said, they should immediately be disqualified from being commander-in-chief.

Let's take them a few at a time.

MITT ROMNEY:

"President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq."

RICK PERRY:

"I'm deeply concerned that President Obama is putting political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment by announcing an end to troop level negotiations and a withdrawal from Iraq by year's end. The President was slow to engage the Iraqis and there's little evidence today's decision is based on advice from military commanders."

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney seem to take the position that withdrawal is a diplomatic failure that contradicts the advice of military commanders. As an aside, neither Romney nor Perry have offered any evidence that our military commanders want an indefinite presence in Iraq.

More importantly, in our constitutional government, we have a civilian commander in chief, who shouldn't hide behind military commanders when making strategic decisions regarding the use of our armed forces. Military leaders must give their best recommendations to their president. Very often, those military leaders have differing opinions. Real leadership involves not blindly following the most hawkish advice from some military leaders, but rather making tough decisions that weigh military opinion alongside diplomatic concerns, budgetary constraints, domestic needs, and national priorities. That's exactly what President Obama did.

More troubling is that Perry and Romney feel that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq after 8 years is some kind of failure in diplomacy and negotiation. In fact, the current withdrawal is the result of negotiation from the previous administration. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which mandated the end of 2011 as the deadline for all troops to leave Iraq, was negotiated by President George W. Bush -- not President Obama. President Obama merely saw that the U.S. kept its word. If Perry and Romney feel that it was a weak agreement, they have an issue with the last President, not this one.

But, if they honestly believe that the removal of troops was negotiated by this President, then they are completely ignorant about the United States' dealings with Iraq, which would worry me, should either of them become commander-in-chief.

NEWT GINGRICH:

"The president has announced what will be seen by historians as a decisive defeat for the U.S. in Iraq. ... After eight years, thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, we will leave in defeat. Don't kid yourself, it is defeat. Iran is stronger."

RICK SANTORUM:

"We have a President that was not able to set conditions and to actually have the kind of influence over the Iraqi government. Now three years the President has had to- to work with the Iraqi government to try to mold and shape that relationship. And to be in a position where really the Iranians now have more sway over the Iraqi government than the United States just shows the weakness of our- our diplomatic effort, the weakness of this President, in being able to shape the battlefield if you will. And I think that's the reason people were so upset that, you know, we've lost- in many respects we've lost control and lost the war in Iraq, because we have Iran having broadened its sphere of influence."

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both oppose the withdrawal of troops because of a fear that the Iranians wield greater influence in post-Saddam Iraq. I have a news flash for them: That has been true for years, even when we surged in Iraq. It isn't a product of President Obama, and it isn't a result of the withdrawal. It's the result of the war itself.

What Gingrich and Santorum don't seem to understand is that Iraq is a majority Shiite country, like Iran. Saddam, a Sunni, was a dictator in the minority. For years, VoteVets.org has maintained that while Saddam was a brutal dictator, he was a backstop against the Iranians, and that his removal from power itself opened up the opportunity for Iran to exercise influence in Iraq once a Shia majority government was inevitably elected.

It's not a surprise that in post-Saddam Iraq, arguably one of the most powerful people in Iraq is Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Islam cleric with ties to Iran. Sadr has shown the ability to cause mass destruction and violence whenever he wants.

If Gingrich and Santorum have a problem with Iranian influence in Iraq, they should direct their complaints to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. If they seriously believe that Iranian influence in Iraq has anything to do with President Obama, then they are woefully ill-informed about that region of the world, and Americans should not have confidence in them as commander-in-chief.

MICHELE BACHMANN:

"And while we're on the way out, we're being kicked out by the very people that we liberated... And to think that we are so disrespected and they -- they have so little fear of the United States that there would be nothing that we would gain from this."

I was going to group Bachmann in with the Perry and Romney group, since she also seems to have no grasp of what the SOFA is, or who negotiated it. But I pulled her comments out separately, because they are so extreme. Her big beef with President Obama is that he hasn't made the Iraqis "fear us." Presumably, she believes that the job of the president is to scare people into becoming our allies, with the threat of military force.

I can't think of one example in history where nations allied in a strong partnership between its respective people because one nation simply feared another. In fact, I can only think of times when fear has led to war. Fear, in this case, does play a role, however. This worldview Michele Bachmann has is so categorically dangerous to United States security that every single person in America should fear her as commander-in-chief.

HERMAN CAIN:

"I can't for the life of me understand why you'd tell the enemy what you're going to do and when you're going to do it. That's just not common sense, I'm sorry."

Like Bachmann, I could have lumped Herman Cain's statement into the section with Perry and Romney, but this stands out on its own for its sheer stupidity.

Is this quote from 2008? Because, SOFA has been on the books for three years. That's when we "told the enemy" when we were going to leave. More specifically, George W. Bush did. Either Cain has been asleep or hasn't read a newspaper in the past three years. In either case, he is absolutely not ready to be commander-in-chief. That Cain believes that this is the first Iraqis have heard about our plans to leave Iraq is just one more in a long line of bafflingly unaware statements from him.

 

Comments

[onelife nofear]

07:12 PM on 11/17/2011

Let us not forget that RON PAUL opposed the war in Iraq from the start and he has been advocating for a pull out for a long time! He understands the complexities of the region his foreign policy is sound and makes America stronger and more secure!

Lets not be too quick to give Obama credit because the administration was doing everything they could to keep troops in Iraq. It's not like we are really coming home though, b/c there are going to be almost 15,000 contractors in Iraq along with our 1 Billion dollar embassy!

Ron Paul 2012! America's last hope!

[coreten]

10:35 AM on 10/28/2011

I don't mind a bit saying this, as a Republican, I fail to see a single redeemable quality within the present Republican candidates for President. In my humble opinion every one of them fail to display a well rounded knowledge that a person in the position of the President of the United States should have. They display utter extremism in areas that require moderation, and every single one of them are bought and paid for by the big business. But regarding my last sentence, I suppose it would be next to impossible to find a politician who does not have his/her hand in the pockets of the big business. Never the less, no one in this bunch of cadidates are deserving the position they are vying for.

[skywalk]

09:16 AM on 10/28/2011

I said to a friend of mine that I thought the reason Bush didn’t take out Bin Laden in Bora Bora in December of 2001 was he wanted a reason to go into Iraq, he said that was treason? If that was treason then almost everyone in the Republican party has been committing treason (Cantor, McConnell, McCain, Perry, etc) they should all stop down immediately or face their punishment! Just kidding, kind of, I don’t get it? He could cure cancer and they would still throw him under the bus.
I do think he is a great commander in chief, not because he killed Bin Laden, but because he seems to be able to make educated decisions quickly and that is the kind of leadership I like!

[wallyone]

09:03 AM on 10/28/2011

The comments by the candidates would be laughable were they not so sad.

[ashenthorn]

07:13 AM on 10/28/2011

The GOP has made a political calculation that the 2012 election will be a simple up or down referendum on Obama - thus their candidates currently feel relatively safe expressing simple and stark opposition to Obama regardless of the topic, without fear of close scrutiny of their positions or statements by a largely uninformed, disinterested public. Seriously, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry or Herman Cain don't have any better idea of what's going on in Iraq than their limo drivers or lawn tenders do. It's very likely that Obama is a skilled enough campaigner to turn the national conversation around and make the election at least partly about Republican competence and readiness, in which case he wins re-election.

[Eileenla]

08:20 AM on 10/28/2011

I agree. The breathtaking stupidity of standing in opposition to everything the president does becomes obvious at times like this. When the public overwhelmingly favors the president's decision and all the Republicans can do is blindly oppose it, they're only "solidifying" a base that wouldn't vote for Obama if he were the only candidate on the ballot. Meanwhile. For those of us who are independents, unaffiliated or Democrats, it only serves to reinforce the belief that Republicans are incapable of reasoned, critical thought. NOT the best qualification for the presidency of a struggling nation in a complex, interdependent world.

[bosse]

11:26 AM on 10/30/2011

I agree to Eileen 100 %. Most who cares for others will do so too.
This type of tactics is not even heard of ,in less advanced nations, to defeat a candidate who has done the impossible, as yet unaccomplished by other Presidents, tasks, at a most difficult time in this century. Don't get mad if I say, if this man was " white" and his name was George or Thomas, much of the problems would have not been encountered. But I still believe there are still enough intelligent thoughtful people who can OVERCOME the narrow minded single issue folks , whose only purpose is to defeat a good man, to replace him with unworthy candidate with no workable programs as yet announced.

[Davwbaird]

01:14 AM on 10/28/2011

everything about this leaves me wordless.

[MikeWebster]

11:34 PM on 10/27/2011

Obama's actions in Iraq have all been about attempting to sort out the mess a little, before the withdrawal. The initial invasion was illegal, and based on a lie told to the American people. The running of the country, after the initial defeat of Saddam's forces was a debacle that caused a complete and bloody mess for the citizens of that country, and lead to the majority of American deaths. That is what happens when you put ideological Republicans in charge of important matters, rather than experts.

Whilst Iraq was descending into chaos, Afghanistan too was allowed to go out of control. In both cases, the strategy was to attempt to stabilise the situation as well as possible, and then to pull out, rather than accept an endless commitment that had no guarantee of helping America, or the countries that had been invaded.

The President has followed the strategy of minimising the harm done by the ludicrous policies of the previous administration. Good on him.

In the meantime, people like Bachmann seem to forget who's country Iraq is, and the fact that the Iraqi people never invited America in. For her to suggest that the Iraqi's should pay the Americans for taking their country, ruled by the brutal Saddam Hussein, and making it a vastly more dangerous place to live, is farcical.

The massive destruction caused by the former Administration can only possibly be fixed after withdrawal.

[Jerry Frey]

11:14 PM on 10/27/2011

Decide for yourself.

http://napoleonlive.info/see-the-evidence/state-by-state-casualties-in-afghanistan-and-iraq/

[bobo5]

09:51 PM on 10/27/2011

Romney panders to the GOP base's Islamaphobia. He uses twisted speech. His entire arguments are based on a false premise.

[powercoruptsonepercenter]

09:50 PM on 10/27/2011

When are Americans going to wise up? We wage war as "peace keepers". Sounds like the money pit we are in. What happened to the old days when you went to war, kicked some butt and took all of your enemy's stuff??

[ltltiggrr]

08:02 PM on 10/27/2011

Being the wife of a U.S. Marine currently serving his 5th deployment in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I am aware of history, the decisions that have been made, right or wrong, etc. I want my husband to come home safely. I don't want the precise date of the withdrawal from Irag or Afghanistan to be known to everyone in the world. I want him home safe. If you can't understand that, then perhaps you should be asking yourself if you've been paying any attention over the past 5 years.

[MikeWebster]

10:36 PM on 10/27/2011

I would have thought that knowledge of the date of withdrawal would ten to make your husband safer. After all, the insurgents might well decide to keep their powder dry until after a withdrawal, if they know the date.

Secondly, you missed the point that the withdrawal date was annouced years ago under Bush.

[Scholastica8]

11:21 PM on 10/27/2011

I understand your worries, but you cannot pull out the numbers of forces we have in Iraq in the dark of a single night. There have to be preparations. Troops will depart on a regular basis and not be replaced. You can't keep all that a secret. All it takes is Iraqis with eyes... witnessing more troops headed to Basra than troops coming in from Basra.. Moreover, if something is going to happen, it will not happen while the US is present. It will happen after we leave. Why shouldn't they wait? We are more and more of a non-factor.

[Sean 6399]

07:55 PM on 10/27/2011

Author neglected to mention someone.

[Jester2069]

12:59 AM on 10/28/2011

No, I think he was left out intentionally....because he didn't say anything stupid about Iraq.

[tonybfine]

08:52 PM on 10/27/2011

Thank you for pointing all these things out so clearly. I think going into Iraq was stupid. They lied to us about the reasons (see the movie Fair Game) and it was an illegal war. I am saddened at how many lives were lost on both sides, and the disabled and scarred brave soldiers who are returning. I read that there were more suicides among our troops than deaths in action. I think that is a testament to the horror of war. We should only fight wars where Americans are threatened, not go and fight wars of choice. Hopefully we will soon be out of Afghanistan and we can heal all the vets.

[MikeWebster]

10:38 PM on 10/27/2011

I'm also sure that the emotional devastation of war is only increased, when the troops are unsure that their mission is good, or right. Additionally, I think the troops would be shocked at the disconnect between their reality, and what is reported at home. That would also tend to impact the emotions.

[ltltiggrr]

08:18 PM on 10/27/2011

What is going to all the military hardware we have in Iraq and Afghanistan? Will it be coming back to the US with our troops or will we leave it as happened in WWII, Viet Nam, and to some degree in the Gulf War. 20,000 unaccounted for surface to air heat seeking missiles on the ground in Libya. That ia frightening.

[Dosadi]

09:12 PM on 10/27/2011

Wait just a minute. You start in Iraq and ask good questions. But you end up in Libya talking about 20,000 surface to air missiles. It sounds like you believe we are leaving all those missiles in Libya when they were never ours. You confused the heck out of me on this one.

[powercoruptsonepercenter]

10:02 PM on 10/27/2011

No lie, its cheaper to leave things behind. Only thing is we are supposed to disarm equipment. Some slips by I am sure. These are sold to third world highest bidder so they can use them agaist us. Great tactical planing huh. We must save a bunch of money, shooting ourselves in the foot!

[turf1]

08:04 PM on 10/27/2011

I wrote a paper my freshman year about how removing the Sunni minority from power in Iraq would create a power vaccum in that region that would only strengthen Iran. That was 2006 before President Obama made himself nationally known with his Fleet Center speech in Boston. I am a warehouseman and seafood sales representative and unfortunatley, I seem more qualified as a GOP canadate then the people who were quoted in this article. The only problem with that is that I have compassion and care about the other 99% of Americans. Sorry Repubs "not gonna do it".

[MikeWebster]

10:41 PM on 10/27/2011

It really boggles the mind, how divorced from reality the last Administration was on the political situation in the middle East, and the likely consequences of their invasion. It's even more astonishing that this current set of candidates, continue in their ludicrous ideological approach to reality, despite the debacle that the Bush administration created using that kind of thinking.