Leon Panetta, mr. Obama’s former Secretary of Defense and a lifelong Liberal Democrat, could not keep silent anymore about how Barack Obama lost Iraq after George Bush won it.
…it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together. Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some US forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence…
The story goes on (Yahoo news, link):
The undersecretary of defense for policy, Michele Flournoy, the number three-ranking civilian at the Pentagon, pressed the argument with the full backing of the top brass, including the chiefs of all the armed forces, he said.
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…
How does Panetta feel about Barack Obama’s leadership and commitment to the USA’s strategic interests?
To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them.
What a surprise (not…) — Barack Obama “never really led…”.
And of course that phrase “never really led them” could be applied to many of mr. Obama’s derelictions of duty.
Leon Panetta is experiencing a full-onset Barack-Hussein-Ebola condition, in which he feels the misery of having worked for a man whose decisions and policies have been an unmitigated American and global disaster and yet his name is on many of them.
To this day, I believe that a small US 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.
Sure, Leon, you have ended up on the right side of history, and welcome to the party.
The question is, What took you so long?