http://time.com/3453840/leon-panetta-iraqi-troop/

Quote:Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence. But none was willing to take that position publicly, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki concluded that any Status of Forces Agreement, which would give legal protection to those forces, would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. That made reaching agreement very difficult given the internal politics of Iraq, but representatives of the Defense and State departments, with scrutiny from the White House, tried to reach a deal.

We had leverage. We could, for instance, have threatened to withdraw reconstruction aid to Iraq if al-Maliki would not support some sort of continued U.S. military presence. My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq’s stability was not only in Iraq’s interest but also in ours.

Quote:Under Secretary of Defense Michèle Flournoy did her best to press that position, which reflected not just my views but also those of the military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs. But the President’s team at the White House pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated. Flournoy argued our case, and those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.

Quote:To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, al-Maliki was allowed to slip away. The deal never materialized. To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.

I don't agree with Leon Panetta on anything political. But I think he is a highly intelligent man who has acted with integrity in a variety of jobs through the years, and I would pay close attention to his comments on this situation.

(10-02-2014 05:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I don't agree with Leon Panetta on anything political. But I think he is a highly intelligent man who has acted with integrity in a variety of jobs through the years, and I would pay close attention to his comments on this situation.

I agree.

Panetta has been a liberal standard bearer for over 40 years. It speaks volumes about the current administration that he is coming out with something like this.

(10-02-2014 05:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

Quote:To my frustration, the White House coordinated ... but never really led ...

This is what the Obama White House will be remembered for, almost irrespective of the issue at hand.

(10-02-2014 09:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 05:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I don't agree with Leon Panetta on anything political. But I think he is a highly intelligent man who has acted with integrity in a variety of jobs through the years, and I would pay close attention to his comments on this situation.

I agree.

Panetta has been a liberal standard bearer for over 40 years. It speaks volumes about the current administration that he is coming out with something like this.

Panetta is a firm place holder in the Clinton Camp. This is just a salvo in the Obama-Clinton feud.

(10-02-2014 10:35 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 09:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 05:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I don't agree with Leon Panetta on anything political. But I think he is a highly intelligent man who has acted with integrity in a variety of jobs through the years, and I would pay close attention to his comments on this situation.

I agree.

Panetta has been a liberal standard bearer for over 40 years. It speaks volumes about the current administration that he is coming out with something like this.

Panetta is a firm place holder in the Clinton Camp. This is just a salvo in the Obama-Clinton feud.

I would agree if there was someone in the Obama camp who was the frontrunner for the democratic nomination for President in 2016 and Hillary needed the help but there is nobody with direct ties who has a chance. Panetta is one of those rare birds in Washington who has enough respect on both sides of the aisle and enough cachet where if he wants a cabinet position in a democratic administration all he pretty much has to do is ask. At this point I don't think Panetta feels beholden to the Clintons anymore.

Remember the stories that Obama wavered seemingly forever on whether to go after bin Laden? And had to be pushed--hard--by Panetta and Hillary before he went along with it? And then Obama took all the credit for doing it, almost single-handedly. This may be payback.

(10-02-2014 10:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 10:35 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 09:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 05:45 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I don't agree with Leon Panetta on anything political. But I think he is a highly intelligent man who has acted with integrity in a variety of jobs through the years, and I would pay close attention to his comments on this situation.

I agree.

Panetta has been a liberal standard bearer for over 40 years. It speaks volumes about the current administration that he is coming out with something like this.

Panetta is a firm place holder in the Clinton Camp. This is just a salvo in the Obama-Clinton feud.

I would agree if there was someone in the Obama camp who was the frontrunner for the democratic nomination for President in 2016 and Hillary needed the help but there is nobody with direct ties who has a chance. Panetta is one of those rare birds in Washington who has enough respect on both sides of the aisle and enough cachet where if he wants a cabinet position in a democratic administration all he pretty much has to do is ask. At this point I don't think Panetta feels beholden to the Clintons anymore.

Don't underestimate pride, ego and legacy. Plus it allows Hillary separation from her time in the Obama Administration
I don't discredit this story at all. In fact I think he was being 'kind' in that criticism.

(10-02-2014 10:32 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-02-2014 05:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

Quote:To my frustration, the White House coordinated ... but never really led ...

This is what the Obama White House will be remembered for, almost irrespective of the issue at hand.

It was the job Obama was elected to do.

So didn't it basically come down to who Obama chose to listen to? It came down to either listening to the generals or his political advisors and Obama chose the political advisors. This, of course, according to Panetta.

First and foremost, Panetta is a Clintonista. This is nothing more than creating a moat between Hillary and Obammy.

(10-03-2014 08:03 AM)VA49er Wrote:  So didn't it basically come down to who Obama chose to listen to? It came down to either listening to the generals or his political advisors and Obama chose the political advisors. This, of course, according to Panetta.

That's one of Obama's other legacies. It goes hand in hand with coordinating, but not leading.

(10-03-2014 06:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  It was the job Obama was selected to do.

FIFY. Before they ever put an unqualified candidate in position to run for president, there was a lot of action by experienced pols like Teddy Kennedy et al. "Obama didn't build that" because he's simply incapable of rising to that position on his own accord.