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 about time.
The war, over there, has been over for years. Now, they are just working as cops. Not the type of job the military was ever cut out to do.
On the contrary. You announce the date and pull out sooner. When the little shits come out of hiding you nail them.
The president used a microphone to make the announcement. Microphones are technology.
Yeah, right! Because if you don't notice it one month ahead, then insurgents would never notice that Americans have left and will stay home. They are that dumb you know.
You make it seem as if Iraq is going to be completely undefended or something. In reality, there's the Iraqi military and police forces, right?
Let's have a little bit of faith in them, okay.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
Let's hope the insurgents and other ne'er-do-wells get the message they're supposed to stop blowing people up on August 31.
From TFA: "While the US has been scaling down its troop presence in Iraq it has been stepping up its military commitment to Afghanistan, with the president ordering a surge of 30,000 additional soldiers there. " So, we're pulling our armed forces out of Iraq, just to send them to Afghanistan. A couple of nukes and they can all come home! I'm just saying...
We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
You mean when Saddam invaded Kuwait? We've 'been there' since that time. Just the level of troops and mission changed.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Target practice?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You're kidding, right? It guarantees that the few remaining insurgent groups will prepare for the date, and then attack with whatever they have left.
That was the criticism in the article based on two car bombs and a drive-by killing eight in Iraq today -- the day of this announcement. I guess a better question should have been "will Iraqi security forces be able to contain the unavoidable violence following this withdrawal?"
That's why you *don't have a specific date* nor do you release your plans to the enemy.
Or perhaps you gamble and show the world that the situation is under control by releasing your "plans" of withdrawal showing that those now in charge are very capable hands. Otherwise what do you do? Sit there and then just magically disappear one day? And when that happens, you think you're not in the same scenario you just mentioned? No matter how you cut it, it's a delicate situation.
My work here is dung.
So does this means the libs are admitting that the surge worked?
I was thinking something similar (that it's easy to declare you will leave on a certain date, but hard to do it if the situation on the ground doesn't match at the time), but I think the way they are doing it is actually good.
They aren't declaring the specific date to leave, they are planning on the specific date to stop fighting. Basically on August 31st they are going to turn everything over to the Iraqi government (who at this point can probably handle anything the insurgents throw at it), but they are going to stick around, just in case. That way if the insurgents do throw everything at them, there'll still be troops around to help deal with it if they really need help. If they can handle themselves for a year, it is a sign we can safely remove the troops. The Iraqis still won't be alone, we can give them air superiority almost instantly if any insurgency gets too bad, and we can easily re-conquer the country within a month if necessary.
Obama did well on this one. Let's give him credit.
Qxe4
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
however, the political fear of americans coming home in bodybags was too much, so they turned around and left saddam in power. kuwait was liberated, saddam was cowed, end of story... not
of course, the shiites who revolted under the false impression or false covert promise of american support were massacred. and of course, the tragedy is saddam was removed when war hawks in the usa sensed the political will finally existed after 9/11 to finish the job. not that 9/11 had anything to do with saddam hussein, but it had everything to do with agendas and the willpower to get them done. the world sensed this massive disconnect and the seedy trumped up lies, and therefore did not support the americans at all the second time around
and it was done at the price of probably many more american, and iraqi, body bags, many years later, under bush ii in iraq ii
so colin powell and assorted numbnuts: you screwed up in 1991. you should have gone all the way. if you start a job, finish it completely. leaving it half done meant a problem that festered
yes, you had the highest and noblest of intentions in mind, but war is messy and has nothing to do with nobility and good intentions, and you need to take some ugly jobs to completion, or don't start the ugly job at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Pirate Party. Though not for any political ideals. I just really like rum. And besides, who else could possibly save us from the ninjas?
I served on the Korean peninsula under Clinton. We never leave anywhere. Ever.
-Peter
Guarding the oil.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
Violence isn't the problem, extricating US troops is the problem.
It didn't matter when Saddam was killing Iraqis, and it won't matter when we hand off to the locals again. The insurgents "attacking" /= "winning", and UNLESS Iraqis buy their country with their own blood sacrifice it won't mean anything to them. There is obviously much more tribal violence to come, but that's normal in that part of the world.
It's called "self-actualization" and there is nothing much Caucasian Colonials can do about it.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yes, because obviously the presence of troops means that combat operations are underway.
Oh, wait...
So, we are ending "combat operations" but keeping the soldiers with guns there? It's only slightly comforting to hear that nothing has changed in the military since I got out (Only in an "at least it isn't me" way). This used to be the trick they would pull on all the missions I was on. When people get tired, just tell them it's almost over, whether it really is or not. Since I'm allowed to think now, what does an end to combat operations really mean? It sounds like they are just going to end combat pay.
It would be like us staying in some small Asia country for nearly 15 years. *cough* kenedy *cough *lbj* *cough* nixon got us out *cough*.
By request and/or treaty obligation, in all 3 situations.
Sure about that? In 2009, defense accounted for 23% of the federal budget.
Yep. Half of that is about $400 billion dollars. That would be way more than a shot in the arm for the economy. And once you start paying down the debt, then the interest on said debt goes down, too. And keep in mind those are 'official' numbers, which are widely known to be complete and utter bullshit (in that they're lower than what is reported).
More easy ideas: stop it with the 'war on drugs': it's an abject failure, and is ridiculously expensive. Legalize and tax marijuana the same as alcohol. You then get: tax money for the sales of marijuana (and more money from the increased sales of junk food, most likely :), billions less spent on the war on drugs, and billions less spent incarcerating marijuana users and marijuana-only dealers. By legalizing marijuana, you'll also take a great deal of power away from the drug cartels, and reduce violence.
Similar thing for prostitution.
So, what... The solution is for the US to stay forever?
Remember to maintain your supply of
Starting a war (even a war with collateral damage) is not a war crime; the idea of a war crime is simply to state that one's legal means to wage war is not unlimited. Deportation of entire populations for deprivation and/or genocide, for instance, is right out. To compare US conduct in Iraq to such things is histrionic nonsense.
Germany, Japan, and South Korea are all pikers when it comes to where we've had troops, and for how long.
We still have Marines and sailors at Guantanamo Bay over 100 years after the end of the Spanish-American War. Ditto with the Philippines. Using those two measuring sticks, there's no reason to think we'll ever leave Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, once we have a foothold there. Not passing judgment on whether this is a good idea or not (there are good arguments to be made on both sides of that one), just stating the reality of the situation.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Soldiers grow back, forests don't.
You've never planted a tree? Seriously, you put a seedling in the ground when it is small, and years later you come back, and it is actually bigger. Plant a soldier and come back in a few years, and all you have is the same small stone with the name of someone's kid on it.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
When did the US defeat France post WW1? I seem to recall them liberating France from Germany during WW2, but not the US defeating the French.
Hell, we still have troops in the South!
Which is also stupid. Our troops should be defending our country. And with our troops in places like South Korea, we could very well be doing more harm than good.
we should not have military bases in 130 different countries.
Uh, except that this is another step in the pullout schedule agreed to between GWB and the Iraqi government back in 2008. Obama and the press are just re-branding this as "his" accomplishment.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Obama did well on this one. Let's give him credit.
Obama did well? Obama opposed everything that allowed Iraq to be in this position now. Obama had no plan for Iraq except a campaign promise (and like all of his campaign promises, it comes with a expiration date). Bush, and Patraus more so, deserves the credit here. They put all Iraq on this path, all Obama did was follow the blueprint given to him by Bush. A plan that called for the removal of troops in late 2010. Obama had no plan of his own
Tim S-
Your pithy comment might look good on a bumper sticker or t-shirt, but it's not really this same thing and we both know it. It's about as dumb as the arguments from the right "when will we stop occupying (Chicago or other city) as there are more deaths there in (time period) than Iraq.
Germany is a strategic ally and fellow NATO member. Simply having operational bases in a country is not the same as occupation. The US does not patrol the streets of Germany, nor do they perform operational missions within Germany's borders aside from training simulations. Assignment in Germany is normally a cushy job and one many soldiers hope for.
US presence in Germany was scaled back following the re-unification of the two Germanys. Early in the Clinton administration early discharge was offered to many US soldiers as a scaling back "peace dividend" (I remember this personally because my wife took the opportunity to return to civilian life). Many troops who were stationed in Germany were moved to Saudi Arabia.
And once you start paying down the debt...
The United States will never, ever, pay down its debt. Ever. It will not ever pay it back. Not because it's not possible, but because those in control choose not to. It's the exact same thing as running up a credit card because you're about to file bankruptcy.
The US will continue to print money (I mean the federal reserve will buy treasuries), until the cows come home. And one day, when every golden egg has finally been squeezed out of the golden goose, our goose will be cooked. And men in expensive tailored suits will leave our country, with bulging pockets, to head for greener pastures. And we'll be left to rot.
I think I'll start making protection payments to the warlord of my county.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
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.
Well, they've decriminalized pot, not legalized it, but that doesn't get them any tax money to help on enforcement, which is kinda silly. Prostitution, however, IS legal and taxed there.
The problem is that since we in the U.S. haven't legalized it, we have to deal with all the health and crime effects (of both pot and prostitution). They're happening now, even though they're illegal, so if we legalize it (not just decriminalize), we can improve the situation, since we'll never get rid of either.
It's like the gays in the military argument - they're ALREADY serving, and it's not a problem.
This tired meme really needs to be done away with.
We maintain limited forces in Japan due to Treaty Obligations.
Korea, we are still there under UN mandate though the size of the force has been slashed in the last 10 years as the RoK Army has stood up.
Germany, we've slowly been moving forces out of there since 1991. I'm sure we'd leave if their government actually asked us too, but considering the benefits to having us there it is unlikely they will.
We still have troops in England, and the war of Independence ended in the 1780's
No military force has ever walked away from Afghanistan as a winner.Not Alexander the Great, not the British Empire, not Russia nor will the U.S.. The only winners are those that just walk away.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Health care costs are going to go up a lot.
They're already going up yearly without any government assistance.
Someone has to pay for all of those people who will not pay for their health care.
We already do. This isn't new and it wasn't started with the recent health care bill.
That is what the added cost the rest of us are paying is being used for.
Actually, the added cost is mostly to cover bullshit administrative tasks. A point that gets ignored by most of the public despite it being one of the most critical points against the bill.
Forcing everyone to have health care only hurts those people that are working.
Meh, hurts the employers a lot more than the employees. (Note: One can argue that hurts the employees as consequence. Fair enough point, but that still puts the initial pain on the employer.)
So much for no taxes or tax increases on the middle class (or those making less then $250k, er $200k, er .. what ever the amount is now).
Wake up to reality: People promising you tax cuts are full of shit and do not have your best interest in mind. They want your vote and they don't give two shits with respect to how much you'll benefit from a 1% tax cut. More importantly, these tools don't give a damn about balancing our debt problem; that's what you should care about in the end, because long term debt will determine tax rates when debt and Social Security payouts end up driving the government's "income" dispersal.