Slashdot Mirror
Obama Sets End of Iraq Combat For August 31st
eldavojohn writes "President Barack Obama has announced that on August 31st the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq, although 50,000 troops will remain until the end of 2011. It's been a long seven-and-a-half years, with no guarantee of this announcement actually signifying the end of violence. Pundits are already speculating on whether or not this withdrawal speech is 'Mission Accomplished 2.' It's possibly the most significant confirmation of and commitment to a withdrawal the world will hear from the United States in Iraq."
It's my understanding that AQiI is pretty much dead, now, and JAM has devolved into civil disobedience now that al-Sadr is in self-imposed exile. If there are any insurgent groups left, they will be local, disorganized, and without the kind of tacit police protection JAM had up until 2005. They will also have no popular support whatsoever.
You missed the "Stuff that matters" part of Slashdot's motto up there.
This "the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq" plus this "50,000 troops will remain" is a meaningless statement.
A meaningful statement would be "the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq" plus "no American troops will remain."
Of course, current right wing propaganda is that the current president is not a warmonger but some kind of pacifist, despite the fact that there s no evidence to suggest that. (Indeed, I'm worried the administration is blundering into a war with Iran.)
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
The US will be there for decades.
Germany surrendered in May 1945, the US is still there.
Japan surrendered in August 1945, the US is still there.
Korean cease fire started in July 1953, the US is still there.
There was a war? I've been pouring over the Congressional record and see no mention of this "War" you speak of. The last one I can find was way back in the 1940's.
Heck, we still have significant numbers of troops in West Germany who do an excellent job of preventing Nazi insurgencies and invasions by the USSR.
I am officially gone from
They were stealing Iraq's oil.
Funny you should post that, in NYC it would actually be police work, using the NYPD's Hercules Teams
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Do you really feel that car bombs are just police work? Let me try to rephrase it for people that are living comfortably: if two car bombs went off in New York city and killed eight, would you just shrug that off as normal everyday police work?
Yes. [1]
References:
[1]: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/02/times.square.closure/index.html
Um... Next presidential election is more than 2 years away... Stunod!
Seems fairly obvious to me. No new offensive missions and no patrols, just chill on base in 100% defense mode as you gradually rotate home.
Probably a lot of boot polishing, weapons cleaning, paperwork catch up time, PMCS the vehicles, guard duty, extra formations and inspections...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
http://www.2010congressionalelection.com/
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
More like almost exactly the timeline Obama campaigned on.
Yes. Now shut up.
In Britain, "anti-terrorism" was indeed regular police work for over 20 years. The police handling of the Arndale Manchester bombing (3000 lbs truck bomb in a crowded city center) was one of the most spectacular evacuations in living history and although I tend to be rather critical of the way the police generally handle things, this was damn-near superhuman effort on their part and they deserve to be proud for saving the lives of every single person there. (There were a few minor injuries to those who stood right up against the barrier to watch the bomb go off, which surely would have deserved a Good Try from the Darwin Awards at the time, but that's it.)
In other situations, an Armed Response Unit might be called in, but that's still police. The SAS were called in once, to storm the Iranian Embassy, but even then the SAS report to the Home Office directly and are not strictly part of the regular army. Even if you did consider them, though, that's one operation out of how many hundreds?
I'm not sure who is in charge of the bomb disposal units, but that's such a tiny part of the whole operation that it really doesn't matter.
(I won't get into the source of funding for the terrorists, as many Slashdotters live in that country and might object.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Big difference for a Soldier serving in Germany and a Soldier serving in Iraq: Gate guards at U.S. bases in Germany make sure you're not armed before letting you on the base. Gate guards at U.S. bases in Iraq make sure you ARE armed (with full combat ammo load) before letting you OFF the base.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
How long have we maintained 40,000 troops in Korea?
The troop surge had vanishingly little to do with the turnaround. Two factors were at work: one, ethnic cleansing in Baghdad had pretty much been completed; in the country as a whole, hundreds of thousands to billions had been internally displaced or fled the country as refugees. Two, we decided to start paying Sunni tribes to work with us against Al Qaeda instead of the other way around. Al Qaeda hadn't done themselves any favors, of course, by targeting civilians instead of working exclusively against the military occupiers.
The surge was just window-dressing and face-saving.
There were French forces under the collaborationist Vichy government in North Africa fighting along side Italian troops when the US and UK invaded Morocco. I don't believe they tried very hard, though.
Wait, we should have sent Stormin' Norman in to do the job so we wouldn't have to a decade later?
The reason Bush the Elder didn't take him down was EXACTLY because he foresaw what happened when Junior did it: a quagmire and a mess we can't possibly win. If Bush I had sent troops all the way in, it wouldn't have solved any part of the problem, it would have just made it happen 10 years earlier.
The problem was invading Iraq in 2003 for no adequate reason and therefore no realizable goal.
As you said, we should have just stayed the heck out.
if bush i in iraq i had decided to push on to baghdad and topple saddam in the early 1990s after racing across the desert unimpeded, then the world would have seen that as justified
Bush 41 had build a true multinational coalition including many Muslim middle eastern nations, and in negotiating the coalition, had agreed not to change the regime in Iraq, only to liberate Kuwait. Pushing to Baghdad would have been a stab in the back to our allies at the time. And it was believed that after the war, Saddam might fall from power on his own, or at least would have been far less powerful / more cooperative than he ended up being.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Yea, because the Cato institute is a bastion of independent and non-partisan fact analysis. Next you'll tell me Gartner provides reports that are impartial and unbiased.
Ah, yes, but 500,000 soldiers and support personnel would come back to this country unemployed. Better to keep them employed abroad than to:
1) Hike unemployment above 10% (politically damaging)
2) Pay them on unemployment to do nothing. (Where they don't make defense contractors any money) (economically damaging to families and industry)
3) Shut down the military industrial complex that allows their deployment possible (and hike unemployment above 12%)
They aren't going to Afghanistan anyway. They are headed to IraN.
Just like WWII was what ended the depression, our boys aren't coming home until we're out of this one. Sad but true.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Do you have links to show these spiraling poll numbers?
Supermajority?
Man, you can disagree all you want. It's a free country, after all. But for chrissakes, do your own research. Glenn Beck is LYING to you, and Rasmussen has an agenda beyond selling graphs to USA Today.
I'm not especially a fan of either pot or hookers, but it seems like the system you've described is working well in Amsterdam. Unless I'm missing something, society hasn't collapsed or been taken over by hooligans. I could understand the reluctance if no one else had tried it, but come on. The experiment is working.
Why is it such a preposterous suggestion in the US?
To answer my own question, I think because it's been ingrained that both are bad on moral grounds, so even if it's not that bad for you, it's damnable nonetheless. Not to mention the boatloads of money that people make off fighting these perpetual wars...
http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/cii/...g27_to_200.pdf Here is the Illinois State Police report for 2007. They haven't released the 2008 report as of yet. Crime was up in 2008, but has dropped back down for 2009 so far..... Cook County: 80 murders for 2,455,801 people - 3.25/100,000 Chicago City: 443 murders for 2,832,854 people - 15.64/100,000 Total: 554 murders for 5,288,655 people
Source: http://www.city-data.com/forum/chicago/667826-where-can-you-find-cook-county.html
The SAS were called in once, to storm the Iranian Embassy, but even then the SAS report to the Home Office directly and are not strictly part of the regular army.
The Iranian embassy is not technically on British soil, just as every embassy in every country is considered to stand on their own soil and not the soil of the hosting country. That being the case, the use of police would not have been justified (police not having international jurisdiction). A military force to rescue hostages would be entirely in keeping with the separation of police and military duties.
Well, I read it...
And it's a piece of propaganda. They redefine socialism in order to conclude that Obama supports socialized healthcare.
I could claim in a white paper that the Cato Institute is a fascist think-tank, as long as I redefine fascism for the purpose of my white paper.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Socialism by dictionary definition involves state ownership of the means of production so there is no real socialism in the world today except in a handful of weirdo countries like North Korea, Cuba and Belarus. When the right in the US accuse someone of being socialist they mean that they sort of lean towards the bigger government involvement in x as opposed to leaving x to the free market. So if you take it literally, it doesn't make sense. I personally would prefer if people used the word statist instead of socialist to describe people like Obama.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Yes, it is just the first step. As for now, though, it remains definitively not socialized.
My credentials: Three years of management in the NHS. I can promise you that the New Labour government did everything it could behind the scenes to privatise health care in the UK without actually having to publically admit it and they did this because they are corrupt as fuck. The US health care giants view the UK as a big pot of gold going to waste. Thanks to New Labour, they're getting their snouts in the trough and we are not going to get cheaper or better health care in return.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
How little you know.
1) The US isn't in a position to bomb anything at the moment.
2) Israel will never bomb Iran. Israel knows that Iran is not a threat and has not really fought a war of aggression and won, they know this. Defensive wars give Israel the upper hand. Unlike the US, Israeli military leaders will not follow a failed strategy just because they started it.
The strange thing about the Jewish (Israel) and Persian (Iran) people is that they get on like a house on fire. When the Islamic republic started expelling certain religious people (Zoroastrian leaders, Baha'i, Jews and so forth) most of them fled to... Israel. There are several Iranian Jews are members of the Israeli government, Moshe Katsav, 8th president of Israel was Iranian. If Israel attacks Iran this will galvanise the people under the Islamic government and Israel knows this. If Iran attacks Israel, Iran knows full when Israeli tanks, lead by Farsi speaking Persian Israeli's arrive in an Iranian ville, no one will give a shit what religion they follow because someone's uncle has come home. Persian Iranians (Read, the vast majority of Iran) dont hate Jews or Israel, the Arab government hates Israel but knows it can never attack them without losing support of the people because the animosity between Arabs and Persians is legendary.
Now the Islamic government of Iran is facing a crisis it has never head to deal with. When the Iran Iraq war of the 80's started to deplete the Iranian population the leaders issued an edict, "start making babies" and the people followed. How old are the babies born in 1984-1989 today? Now a large, young population is angry and want to express it, they've never had 20 somethings in any significant number before, they aren't old enough to remember how bad the Shah was and why the Islamic revolution was supported. All they know is that they dont like the current government.
So Iran is no threat, if anything Israel has taken to supporting the current regime in order to distance Tehran from their Israel hating allies (Hezbolla and Hamas).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.