U.S. withdrawing from Iraq

[SouthAsian]

Most of the troops will be leaving. I assume a small contingent will be left behind. Glad to hear this.These past 8 or so years have been a burden for both nations Iraq and the U.S. maybe now we can start the healing process.You thoughts on the matter?

[satanbrain]

Withdraw and return after the next massive terrorist attack. It would be easier to remain, or transfer them to another location, syria, iran, saudi arabia. They'll return soon enough.

[tyler2513]

It's about time. Obama was hoping to withdraw troops from both Afghanistan and Iraq early in his movement as President. He's deployed more troops then departed now with them getting involved with the Libya conflict and such.

[SmilezRoyale]

I'm just curious as to what the actual financial presence is of the US in Iraq. Are the contractors pulling out too?

Prior to intervening in Libya, Obama could have legitimately claimed that he was simply 'cleaning up bushes mess' - But in sticking his foot into the door of libyan politics, he's shown himself to be as much of an opportunist as his predecessor.

[animehater]

Actually I hear that ALL troops will be leaving due to a breakdown in talks with the Iraqis. This obviously does risk Iran expanding its influence in the Arab states. I say this makes the struggle for Syria all the more important.

[Richard]

Doesn't really mean much to me seeing as Washington is now beating the war drums at Iran. What with assassination accusations amongst nuclear fears, etc. etc.

[SouthAsian]

At 10/21/11 01:16 PM, satanbrain wrote: Withdraw and return after the next massive terrorist attack. It would be easier to remain, or transfer them to another location, syria, iran, saudi arabia. They'll return soon enough.

Are you referring to 9/11?Well that event was used as a scape goat to invade Iraq. they had no connection to it.Of course Bush and inc found a way to connect the two.Anyways let us hope a country like Iran which is the next key power broker after Israel doesn't get any smart ideas.Because then Israel will feel quite obliged to step in, which then will always draw the furor of the U.S. again.Looks like the U.S. has made a defining mark and presence in the middle east.

At 10/21/11 01:19 PM, tyler2513 wrote: It's about time. Obama was hoping to withdraw troops from both Afghanistan and Iraq early in his movement as President. He's deployed more troops then departed now with them getting involved with the Libya conflict and such.

Yeah who would've really anticipated the comprehensive revolts in the Arab world.Totally a curve ball move.Hopefully now that Qaddafi is dead the Libyans will feel more confident in heading security measures, and leaving us out of it at least in a NATO related role.

At 10/21/11 01:30 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm just curious as to what the actual financial presence is of the US in Iraq. Are the contractors pulling out too?

Good question.Do you mean military contractors or corporations( big oil) I'd say that as long as a military or security gap exists Iraqi leaders will continue to look to foreign help.I mean you have some Iraqis saying that they would rather have U.S. troops around for protection.And seeing as how there are more contractors than U.S. troops the leaders feel more familiar with them.Or not hmmm.

Prior to intervening in Libya, Obama could have legitimately claimed that he was simply 'cleaning up bushes mess' - But in sticking his foot into the door of libyan politics, he's shown himself to be as much of an opportunist as his predecessor.

Yeah definitely some economic gain to be had there, maybe a foot in the door to oil without un necessary military sacrifice like in Iraq.

At 10/21/11 01:30 PM, animehater wrote: Actually I hear that ALL troops will be leaving due to a breakdown in talks with the Iraqis. This obviously does risk Iran expanding its influence in the Arab states. I say this makes the struggle for Syria all the more important.

Yeah it had to do with immunity laws.The U.S. didn't want its troops to be held accountable by Iraqi/Islamic law so that's primarily why we wont be staying a day extra then we need to.I definitely expect Iran to be making some moves into Iraq.They will see Iraq as a very enticing medium to work with.They both have a majority Shia population too, which is why Iran finds Iraq something to toy around with probably.My guesses only.

At 10/21/11 02:08 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Doesn't really mean much to me seeing as Washington is now beating the war drums at Iran. What with assassination accusations amongst nuclear fears, etc. etc.

The country as a whole would probably revolt if we were to start something with Iran right after.I truly hope we never have to step inside Iran.The're a total different ball game than Iraq. Much bigger, more zealous, flooding of insurgents across the Muslim world.We would break under the pressure I feel.

[adrshepard]

At 10/21/11 02:31 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Are you referring to 9/11?Well that event was used as a scape goat to invade Iraq.

No, it only shattered US complacency over potential threats. An Iraq armed with WMDs took on a whole new relevance.

they had no connection to it.Of course Bush and inc found a way to connect the two.

100% wrong. No one in the administration ever asserted Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

8 years later and people are STILL getting this shit wrong.

[Camarohusky]

At 10/21/11 03:06 PM, adrshepard wrote: 100% wrong. No one in the administration ever asserted Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

But Dick Cheney was running around saying Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda, which is pretty close to saying that.

[SouthAsian]

At 10/21/11 03:06 PM, adrshepard wrote:

No, it only shattered US complacency over potential threats. An Iraq armed with WMDs took on a whole new relevance.

Are you saying that the U.S. pre 9/11 was too relaxed and maybe a little oblivious when it came to understanding potential threats against it?well yeah it was.Anyways on an entirely different level the WMD situation could also be labeled a scapegoat anyways.We used scapegoats for war in Iraq.If it wasn't 9/11 it was WMD.You can't deny that.

100% wrong. No one in the administration ever asserted Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

True.What I meant to say that the Bush Administration immediately factored Iraq in to the larger war on terror movement. They included Al Qaeda, and Saddam in the same type of spectrum.That they represented "State sponsored" terrorism, in the same vein as Al Qaeda which contrasted that as a loosely organized, confederation of cells with no real sovereign government yet still having incredible mobility and malleability.

What I find so damning is the way Rumsfeld hours after 9/11 was already thinking about the planning stages for striking Iraq.So why is it that he was thinking about 9/11 and Saddam on the same wave length?they aren't completely associated with each other, but they were inseparable as far as Bush Co was concerned.

8 years later and people are STILL getting this shit wrong.

I blame the media here.

[Richard]

At 10/21/11 02:31 PM, SouthAsian wrote:
The country as a whole would probably revolt if we were to start something with Iran right after.I truly hope we never have to step inside Iran.The're a total different ball game than Iraq. Much bigger, more zealous, flooding of insurgents across the Muslim world.We would break under the pressure I feel.

The country has no way of revolting. The forefathers did not foresee tomahawk missiles, tanks, fighter jets and bombers when they gave us the right to bear arms.

The armament that civilians hold in comparison with the federal government's army, while respectable, is not enough to mobilize and actually overthrow the government. That, and all communication is monitored, and it is considered a federal crime to plot to overthrow the government. Any persons plotting an overthrow will be outed, arrested, and smeared by the government's media.

[BUTANE]

It's one more promise that the president has to kept from his 2008 campaign. Ending the war in Iraq by withdrawing all the troops by Jan 1st is a great PR move for the administration. But on top of that, it's the right move. We don't need to babysit Iraq anymore, they can determine their own fate from now on.

[SouthAsian]

At 10/21/11 03:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/21/11 03:06 PM, adrshepard wrote: 100% wrong. No one in the administration ever asserted Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

But Dick Cheney was running around saying Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda, which is pretty close to saying that.

Exactly ^

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/21/11 01:16 PM, satanbrain wrote: Withdraw and return after the next massive terrorist attack.

Except Iraq was not attacked over terrorism. It was attacked based on a perceived fear that Saddam had, and/or was actively developing chemical and biological WMD's. Knowing what you're talking about is fun.

It would be easier to remain,

There will be a residual force. There's ALWAYS a residual force. Heck we still have troops in Germany and that war has been over since 45!

or transfer them to another location,

Oh, because that's simple and all right?

syria,

Sovereign nation. Unless you want to declare war, if Syria says no, how do you transfer them?

iran,

Hostile nation. You'd have to declare war and the American public does not want or need another foreign war. No way to swing it, and I think the policy right now is to encourage dissent within and hope that revolution happens internally vs. going and forcing regime change.

saudi arabia.

Ally. Well, frenemy. They produce the most oil, the US consumes the most oil. They're a real and clear threat sure, but we'll never attack them because we need that oil. Once again, understanding geopolitics is helpful.

They'll return soon enough.

I've actually read Islamic Terrorist organizations like Al Qaieda are having major problems with recruitment and executing plans and attacks. Hell, this was happening well before the international community decided to take such a hard line stance on terrorism. I fully expect you'll rebut this by bringing up Hamas. But let's remember that Hamas is not really an international terror organization, they're more local and confined to your region. I'm talking international instances of Islamic Terror.

[satanbrain]

At 10/21/11 04:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Except Iraq was not attacked over terrorism. It was attacked based on a perceived fear that Saddam had, and/or was actively developing chemical and biological WMD's. Knowing what you're talking about is fun.

The initial reason was wrong. The wrong cause at the beginning doesn't mean there is no reason to remain where al-qaida might strengthen itself further. They will wait until all the forces are gone at then launch an attack.

There will be a residual force. There's ALWAYS a residual force. Heck we still have troops in Germany and that war has been over since 45!

Almost all will be gone, this residual force could at best train iraqis to defend themselves. Which will take considerable amount of time.

Oh, because that's simple and all right?

Because you might have an interest defending the citizens there.

Sovereign nation. Unless you want to declare war, if Syria says no, how do you transfer them?

Exactly how NATO was transferred into lybia.

Hostile nation. You'd have to declare war and the American public does not want or need another foreign war. No way to swing it, and I think the policy right now is to encourage dissent within and hope that revolution happens internally vs. going and forcing regime change.

If the diplomatic effort to stop iran's nuclear weapons development fail, and an military option will be the sole option, wouldn't seizing these nuclear plants will be less devastating than bombing them? Iran has recently attempted to assassinate an ambassador. Do not assume they cannot do worse.
While in the last months they have somewhat weakened they still have relationships with iraq, they sponsor the muslim brotherhood and it's branches. Iran has also sent forces to reinforce Assad's forces. Iran's reaction to aiding assad's opposition is presumable, declaring a war. Whoever start it, there will be a war.

Ally. Well, frenemy. They produce the most oil, the US consumes the most oil. They're a real and clear threat sure, but we'll never attack them because we need that oil. Once again, understanding geopolitics is helpful.

Sending them as reinforcements. Allies wouldn't refuse more forces to fight a mutual enemy, Will they?

I've actually read Islamic Terrorist organizations like Al Qaieda are having major problems with recruitment and executing plans and attacks.

Why do you think Al-Qaida is the only terrorist organization that can gain support in iraq?

Hell, this was happening well before the international community decided to take such a hard line stance on terrorism. I fully expect you'll rebut this by bringing up Hamas. But let's remember that Hamas is not really an international terror organization, they're more local and confined to your region. I'm talking international instances of Islamic Terror.

Hamas is a branch of the muslim brotherhood, a regional fundamentalist organization sponsored by iran. This organization ideology is conquering the "occupying" west. The muslim brotherhood advocate "resistance" against US, which means they'll likely try to replace al-qaida and increase iran's influence in iraq (excluding the muslim brotherhood in syria, who admit Iran is Assad's ally).

[JudgeDredd]

At 10/21/11 04:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/21/11 01:16 PM, satanbrain wrote: Withdraw and return after the next massive terrorist attack.

Except Iraq was not attacked over terrorism. It was attacked based on a perceived fear that Saddam had, and/or was actively developing chemical and biological WMD's. Knowing what you're talking about is fun.

Saying why they were invaded doesn't mean "why they were really invaded".. we were here 10 years ago and saw how they ignored the reality on the ground for some wacky fiction.. The IAEA were there doing inspections and not getting much resistance.. the US decided UNILATERALLY to ignore all evidence and invade a sovereign nation (a leader of whom once worked for the CIA, and bought weapons from the USA...) Knowing what really happened is even more shocking than "FUN".

[lapis]

I remember how hotly the Iraq issue was debated a few years ago, especially during the near-civil war stage, and now they're actually pulling out and I'm like "ok". There's still a bombing in Iraq that leaves over 20 people dead every three weeks or so, but due to the radically changing dynamics in the region all attention has shifted towards Egypt, Syria and Libya with Iraq being reduced to that news item that keeps popping up but that no one cares about.

In any case, we'll see how long Iraq's government lasts in the curent form. On the short to medium term, it'll probably be just like Lebanon with the Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd division governing politics both in parliament and in the streets through the militias, just more violent. But due to the factionalism I don't think an Islamist takeover is likely, making Iraq so much less interesting than Egypt or Syria.

At 10/21/11 04:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: There will be a residual force. There's ALWAYS a residual force. Heck we still have troops in Germany and that war has been over since 45!

Actually, from the media it seems like the pullout will be absolute. "Iraqi leaders had wanted 5,000 US troops to remain in a training capacity. But those trainers would not have received immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.The Pentagon refused to accept that condition, with Defence Secretary Leon Panetta insisting that "we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers". The decision to pull out all US troops suggests no deal could be reached, despite Iraq's desire for continued access to US military expertise, correspondents say."

At 10/22/11 02:08 AM, satanbrain wrote: Hamas is a branch of the muslim brotherhood, a regional fundamentalist organization sponsored by iran. This organization ideology is conquering the "occupying" west

Muslim brotherhood offshoots in the West care about conquering the West. A handful of brazen remarks aside, members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are not stupid enough to think that they actually take over Europe or the US, nor would they be primarily be interested in doing so. They would sooner turn on Shi'ite Iran than on Western countries like Greece or Italy. Assuming that Israel is destroyed beforehand, because that will remain the focal point of Islamist anger for as long as it exists.

[animehater]

At 10/21/11 03:45 PM, BUTANE wrote: It's one more promise that the president has to kept from his 2008 campaign. Ending the war in Iraq by withdrawing all the troops by Jan 1st is a great PR move for the administration. But on top of that, it's the right move. We don't need to babysit Iraq anymore, they can determine their own fate from now on.

Except he originally wanted to keep a few thousand troops there until the deal with the Iraqis fell through, now it seems he's using this defeat as some sort of personal victory for 2012. And what's this about determining their own fate? The problem was always who would dominate the country after we left be it al qaeda or Iran, they still don't have control over their own fate. Here's to hoping the Syrian revolution can weaken Iran enough to change that though. You have to think regionally.

[adrshepard]

At 10/21/11 03:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/21/11 03:06 PM, adrshepard wrote: 100% wrong. No one in the administration ever asserted Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

But Dick Cheney was running around saying Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda, which is pretty close to saying that.

I couldn't say without reading what he said. There was room for interpretation when it came to the exact relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and that was just in the intelligence reports. Using that information in a speech to average people or in conversation doesn't always preserve the same level of subtlety. Even the official senate intelligence committee report on public remarks about Iraq's links to terrorism couldn't say that specific statements were contradicted by intelligence. It could only point to false "implications," which are inherently subjective.

At 10/21/11 03:44 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Are you saying that the U.S. pre 9/11 was too relaxed and maybe a little oblivious when it came to understanding potential threats against it?well yeah it was.Anyways on an entirely different level the WMD situation could also be labeled a scapegoat anyways.We used scapegoats for war in Iraq.If it wasn't 9/11 it was WMD.You can't deny that.

Yeah, I can, because you seem to be saying that an Iraq armed with WMDs isn't threatening enough to merit action. Iraq was on the administration's radar even before 9/11. The attacks may have brought about a mentality that favored a more active and assertive strategy, but that's not the same as a scapegoat. Scapegoat implies some ulterior motive hidden behind a red herring. I don't think WMDs can qualify as red herrings, and I've never heard a convincing ulterior motive (If Bush wanted to throw money to the "military-industrial complex, etc." wouldn't it just be easier to push through favorable legislation in the Republican-dominated legislature?)

True.What I meant to say that the Bush Administration immediately factored Iraq in to the larger war on terror movement. They included Al Qaeda, and Saddam in the same type of spectrum.That they represented "State sponsored" terrorism

Yeah, they are different, but I don't see how that makes state-sponsored terrorism any less of a problem.

What I find so damning is the way Rumsfeld hours after 9/11 was already thinking about the planning stages for striking Iraq.So why is it that he was thinking about 9/11 and Saddam on the same wave length?

Well, Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism, though it was usually restricted to groups that target Israel. And he was one of the few major foreign "enemies" in US policy at the time. From the accounts that I've read though, they determined relatively quickly that Saddam didn't organize the attack.

[SouthAsian]

At 10/22/11 02:33 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Yeah, I can, because you seem to be saying that an Iraq armed with WMDs isn't threatening enough to merit action. Iraq was on the administration's radar even before 9/11. The attacks may have brought about a mentality that favored a more active and assertive strategy, but that's not the same as a scapegoat. Scapegoat implies some ulterior motive hidden behind a red herring.

The threat that Iraq COULD have posed if it did have WMDs is indeed a significant threat.However the methods that the Bush Admin followed in order to prove this threat were all in-comprehensive, un founded, mismatched and represented themselves as hurried excuses in order to expedite U.S. boots on the ground. We never offered a legitimate, strong basis for our perceived suspicions of WMDs in Iraq.Besides at the time there were other countries we believed to be pursuing these so called WMDs yet we never offered a critical analysis of them.

I don't think WMDs can qualify as red herrings, and I've never heard a convincing ulterior motive (If Bush wanted to throw money to the "military-industrial complex, etc." wouldn't it just be easier to push through favorable legislation in the Republican-dominated legislature?)

The key word is perceived WMDs.Even at that time the claims of WMD in Iraq were un substantiated with a part of this "evidence" for WMDs predicated on certain false sources.And I honestly have no idea concerning Bush throwing money at the military or what that has to do with the Iraq war.

Yeah, they are different, but I don't see how that makes state-sponsored terrorism any less of a problem.

Its not .Iraq clearly caused many severe human right violations and Saddam subjugated his own people.I also believe that there needed to be a regime change.But I felt like we were lied to. I think we invaded Iraq for all the wrong reasons.Because of these WMDs farce.That Saddam would ever side with Al Qaeda was never proven and no evidence was even found.We were lucky enough to be able to fall back on secondary reasons for invasion, that we were there to free the people from an imbalanced, and oppressive regime.I guess my whole issue with the Iraq war was this whole WMD spectacle that was moved in place.

Well, Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism, though it was usually restricted to groups that target Israel. And he was one of the few major foreign "enemies" in US policy at the time. From the accounts that I've read though, they determined relatively quickly that Saddam didn't organize the attack.

Yes Saddam did have connections with he likes of Hamas.It was just one of many distasteful things he did.Yes he did have nothing to do with 9/11
I think we can agree on that.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 10/21/11 01:30 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm just curious as to what the actual financial presence is of the US in Iraq. Are the contractors pulling out too?

Good question.Do you mean military contractors or corporations( big oil) I'd say that as long as a military or security gap exists Iraqi leaders will continue to look to foreign help.I mean you have some Iraqis saying that they would rather have U.S. troops around for protection.And seeing as how there are more contractors than U.S. troops the leaders feel more familiar with them.Or not hmmm.

It doesn't really matter to me. Any agency that is on the Taxpayers payroll and who's existence is predicated on the military interventions i would define as a 'contractor'

Prior to intervening in Libya, Obama could have legitimately claimed that he was simply 'cleaning up bushes mess' - But in sticking his foot into the door of libyan politics, he's shown himself to be as much of an opportunist as his predecessor.

Yeah definitely some economic gain to be had there, maybe a foot in the door to oil without un necessary military sacrifice like in Iraq.

Well i'm not going to jump on the idea that he did it for oil just yet. What I do know is that the US was formerly giving money to the libyan government before it decided to side with the rebels, and Mr Obama's epiphany that the US government should be in the business of making every government a democracy was similar to that of his precessor.

[tpm]

It's a good move considering we should have never been there in the first place. I say this as an Iraq vet, whatever that's worth.

[Ericho]

Gee, and I thought most of the people from the Iraq War came back when Stephen Colbert had that episode where Joe Biden gave out hot dogs. It just goes to show you can't trust spoof news shows. It sounds like this is really going to happen and it sure has been a long time coming. Now that Gadaffi has been killed, it looks like the troops in Libya are hopefully going to be withdrawn as well. Please work on Afghanistan.