I don't remember now.....But he misread the situation on the ground and pulled out despite expressed concerns. With hindsight it should have been done slowly and carefully....well, that's my layman's view anyway.

Obama was a micro manager who was useless on foreign policy.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Oct 2017 11.49pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I agree, I preferred his wiliness to criticise the land grab tactics.....though it's obvious the way it's going over there.....He approved the Bin Laden assassination...that deserves credit like you said.

I admit...can't think of much good Obama did foreign policy wise....just made America look weak....Putin had obvious contempt for him...China made him look like an economic patsy.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Delayed, nothing else...accept making them wealthier.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Well this thread is about the capture of Raqqa - Which wouldn't have been remotely possible without the several years of war that Iraqi and Rebel factions in Syria have been fighting, supported by US air support, training, equipment and special forces support.

Trump hasn't actually achieved a victory in Syria, and taking credit for it is absurd. The fall of Raqqa required the defeats of IS in Iraq first, and then into Syria.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

IS grew rapidly because the whole region was destabled by western intervention.

IS was previously known, in the most part, as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and had been active and a growing force in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and whilst it probably benefited from the troop withdrawls, it was the Syrian based IS, which had built up allies within the Sunni insurgents in Northern Iraq, that actually launched an offensive from within Syria.

Problem for the US was that continual deployment in northern Iraq wasn't really viable - It fed into the feeling of the insurgency, was economically taxing and undermined the authority of the Iraqi regime and military.

Had the US remained at full presence in Iraq, I think you're right, you wouldn't have had the same kind of incursion that occurred in the same way - Their is some obfuscation in the idea that it was entirely an IS thing, but you also had an ongoing insurgency that erupted into a civil war, which ISIL (at the time) took advantage of.

A calculated decision, probably the wrong one with hindsight, but the continued deployment of US troops in Iraq wasn't popular back in the US, with either democrats or republicans.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]