US Troops To Leave Iraq By End of Year

mayberry42 writes with news that President Obama has announced an end to the U.S. military engagement in Iraq. All U.S. soldiers will leave Iraq by the end of the year. "Mr. Obama said that as of Jan. 1, 2012, the United States and Iraq would begin 'a normal relationship between two sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect.' In a videoconference on Friday morning with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Mr. Obama told him of the administration’s decision, which grows out of an inability of the United States and Iraq to come to an agreement on leaving a few thousand military trainers in the country. The United States had earlier agreed to exit Iraq by the end of the year and leave 3,000 to 5,000 troops in Iraq as trainers, with some members of Congress advocating the retention of a reduced fighting force as well. But Pentagon lawyers insisted that the Iraqi Parliament grant immunity from legal prosecution to the troops if they were to remain."

Comments

US. vs China

[TechLA]

Which country has attacked more countries. US or China?

Re:US. vs China

[Anonymous Coward]

China, for varied definitions of "china". Though it's not exactly a fair comparison.

But nice try, troll.

Re:US. vs China

[bennomatic]

Since 1776 or since 3000 BC?

Re:US. vs China

[Vinegar Joe]

Which country has freed more countries? US or China?

Re:US. vs China

[Oswald McWeany]

In recent years- the US.

However, I am sure if China were the global super-power and the US just an emerging power we would see the numbers reversed.

Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power? I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?

Japan? Taiwan? South Korea? Singapore? Indonesia? India?

China has grievences or claims against all of the above- if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.

Re:US. vs China

[Riceballsan]

Define freed? Does tearing down an oppressive organization that will later be replaced by another that will be similarly oppressive? The problem with another group winning your freedom for you, especially in the middle east is that people that are used to being oppressed and enslaved, the oppressed middle eastern countries, are like girls with an abusive father. They grow up move out, and move in with an equally abusive boyfriend. A white knight "saves" her from the abusive boyfriend, he goes to jail or whatever, without massive amounts of therapy, guess where she'll be in 2 years. 9 times out of 10, with a new abusive husband.

Re:US. vs China

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a valid comparison. For one thing, the U.S. itself acts as an inhibitor for Chinese overseas-aggression. But my main point is, it's only relevant to compare against nations that had similar military & diplomatic supremacy -- such as the USSR (sort of), or the British Empire, or Germany. I doubt that Sweden for example would be the same peaceful loving country if its position were swapped with the United States of America.

Re:US. vs China

[Rei]

Not to defend China too much, but it's quite worth noting that China spends a far smaller percent of its GDP on its military than the US does. The official Chinese military budget for 2010 was under 90B, although estimates peg actual spending between 100 and 150 billion. The US does a bit of off-books military budgeting, too, such as putting nuclear weapons in the DOE and having war spending come as supplementals. Overall, the US spends about 6x on the military what China spends, but has under 3x the GDP.

Re:US. vs China

[whargoul]

You're right, why even bother?
I guess "no hope" > "some hope" in your world.

Re:US. vs China

[Hognoxious]

Not to defend China too much, but it's quite worth noting that China spends a far smaller percent of its GDP on its military than the US does.

Probably true of Germany compared to Britain in 1933.

Re:US. vs China

[Applekid]

You're right, why even bother?

I guess "no hope" > "some hope" in your world.

Your point is a good one, but can only hold water in a vacuum. "Freeing" countries involves war: blood spilled, innocents killed, things blown up, cities turned rubble. Hope is good, sure, but when you're going to order people into graves and nullify great amounts of energy building a society, I'd like a little more evidence of net good than just "some hope".

Re:US. vs China

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

That is absurd, bordering on racist and misogynist. Its very similar to arguments made against ending slavery in the USA in the middle of the 19 th century.

Of course that doesn't mean that any war is automatically justified if its to free people. A look at St Augustine's principle of a Just war is a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

Re:US. vs China

[TubeSteak]

The Middle East's problem is that the oppressive governments prevent the populace from having organizations and institutions that can stand up and help create a better government.
Usually, the only organized group is a fundamental Islamist one, because they're the oppressive government stamped out any other political competition.

As for the women, unless you have hard statistics to back up your claims, what you're saying sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim.

Re:US. vs China

[jdavidb]

if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.

I don't agree with the troll you responded to, but I just wanted to point out that just because those countries might have been endangered by China, that does not mean that it is right to save them at the expense of American taxes, lives, and freedoms. I think if people want to protect other countries, they should support doing so out of their own lives and livelihood. Then they can more accurately appraise costs and decide if it's worth it to them.

Re:US. vs China

[MRe_nl]

1933, Ger. 4% /GDP, Eng. 2.5% (approx.), both rising sharply the entire decade.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/eloranta.military

http://eh.net/files/graphics/encyclopedia/eloantra004.gif

http://eh.net/files/graphics/encyclopedia/eloantra005.gif

Re:US. vs China

[Tom]

Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power? I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?

Uh, same as the US? Resources, strategic locations, egomania and creating markets for the military industry?

China has grievences or claims against all of the above- if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.

That's speculation. I can not disprove them, though I don't think the Chinese are entire irrational, and probably realize that most of these countries are more valuable to them as partners and markets than they are as battlegrounds.

Seriously, the US has invaded and bombed a ton of countries since WW2 (about 50, I think). The funny thing about all of them is that at least at the respective times none of them were important market places for US industries.

The main legacy of the two world wars was that they demonstrated how much modern wars are about attrition and economy. The US didn't win WW1 because they had the better soldiers (they didn't, in fact the first deployments were pretty much slaughtered like cattle, until the army radically changed their training methods) nor did it win WW2 because it had the superior technology (why do you think so many german scientists and engineer found new homes in the USA after the war?). They won because their industrial and military output, as the only major war participant unaffected by bombings or invading forces, surpassed the Axis. They could afford to lose 2 planes for every 1 german, because they could still ramp up production. A look at the production numbers on a timeline makes it trivial to see that the war turned around almost precisely at the point in time where Allied military production became larger than Axis production.

Everyone but the US has since realized that we can do the same thing without the ugly war distraction. Especially the Chinese. They have enough military and enough interesting toys (nukes, sunburn missiles, etc.) to make sure only a fool would want a war with them, but the real conflict is fought in the factories and universities.

Re:US. vs China

[hairyfeet]

Riiiight, it don't have a thing to do with all that oil, and the shitload of minerals found under Afghanistan, perish the thought! Nope just helping brown people because inside every brown person is an American just waiting to get out....it seems like I've heard that before somewhere.

Oh and after the year is up they won't be "troops" they'll be advisers! yeah, that's the ticket!

Re:US. vs China

[Anonymous Coward]

If you mean freed from the nuances of life by bombing the shit out of them or freeing them from their possessions and way of life, US, no doubt about it.

Re:US. vs China

[Riceballsan]

I partially agree with you that the amount of housecleaning the former government did is a large factor. The part on women though is not blaming the victim, it is basic psychology in how the human mind works. People tend to stick to what they are used to, and wind up repeating roles. In the scenario I gave, it is not the woman's fault, if anyone would be to blame directly in that example it would be the abusive father that adjusted the hypothetical person to it. It dosn't take any research or source to know that humans, do not always or even often gravitate towards the healthiest relationship, but every relationship going back to the parent effects their tendencies. People who were abused (of both genders), tend to move to relationships that will also be abusive. The underlying cause for why someone gets into a relationship, if they are not dealt with, will cause a leaning towards returning to the same situation. It takes a change of the way they have been thinking for years, some people quickly learn their lesson the first time, most will repeat the same mistake a few times.

Re:US. vs China

[Riceballsan]

I did not say either was impossible. Women do get out of that situation all the time, usually after an abusive relationship is broken off, they get years of therapy, and work to change the way they think. When you mass scale it from a person to a country... it takes alot more years. Basically the 2 sane options are. 1. Agree to lock in, keep thousands of troops there for 20 years or so to stabilize the country, or 2 note that it is a more or less lost cause. Sending countless of your own people to their grave, and millions of other people's money, then walking away turning your head accomplishes nothing for them, and costs you greatly. Banning slavery within the US was fairly easy by comparison, mainly because it was the US chosing to ban it, and the US stayed around to keep it enforced. Now what if slavery in the US were ended by lets say, the french sailing to america, declaring war on the US, winning the war and leaving, do you think there is any assurance it would have stayed abolished?

Re:US. vs China

[Anonymous Coward]

There are all kinds of factors to that, though.

China can throw bodies into a conflict. They have huge numbers and they don't give shit one about using them. That's some cheap ass warfare compared to how we do things. And it means one less mouth to feed for them.
China isn't policing the oceans of pretty much the entire world.
China doesn't have bases scattered all over the world nor is it acting as other countries' military.
China has the US to keep it in check in places it would like to be involved in (pretty much any country within 100 miles of its borders).

And let's not forget they've been ramping up in a big way and will continue to do so. They're just waiting for us to blink.

The reality is the only thing holding China back for the last 60 years has been the USSR and the US. It's way more expensive for us to contain them than it is for them to wait.

Re:US. vs China

[Anspen]

The US (or more correctly the Allies) also won because the Soviet Union kept fighting, even after losing a shitload of soldiers (to say nothing of civilians) in fighting the Axis forces. Arguably they couldn't have done it without US industrial support (especially trucks), but that is what actually broke the German war machine.

(Yes, not the point of the comment, and somewhat informed people will know this, but the shorted version: "The US singlehandedly won WW II" is a pet peeve of mine.)

Re:US. vs China

[andresa]

Yeah, either you're seriously ignorant or just trolling.

Re:US. vs China

[blind monkey 3]

because inside every brown person is an American....

It's okay, I'm sure he's using a prophylactic.

Re:US. vs China

[blind monkey 3]

Sounds like a hegemony is expensive to maintain....

Re:US. vs China

[PintoPiman]

Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power?

We like to view China as an up-and-comer, but they're really a been-there-done-that situation. It's a 3000 year old country. They have a lot of strife and violence in their history for sure. That said, when it comes down to it, they've demonstrated the ability to have size and resources and power without letting it get to their head. Relative to their size and might, they've not demonstrated Britain's colonization drive, or the US's preference for invading random countries from time to time just to stay in shape.

Now, I'd rather be a US citizen than a Chinese citizen, don't get me wrong. It's just that if I were a resident of some small weak country that was neither? I'd be more afraid of the US than the Chinese.

Re:US. vs China

[Tom]

You're right, of course, and I didn't intend to say that. However, russia alone would've likely fought to an impasse. They had lost not only thousands of trains, but also much of their industrial capabilities. The germans suffered massive losses on the eastern front, but the russians suffered worse, and were losing production capabilities. They stopped the "unstoppable" german war machine, but the price was horrible.

But even had there been peace in the east, the war in western Europe would've still been lost by the Axis, due to sheer numbers. The price, however, would've been several times higher without the russians.

Re:US. vs China

[Tubal-Cain]

Kuwait may count; I don't know how oppressive it is. South Korea too. What's China's count? Maybe North Korea, depending on your viewpoint?

Re:US. vs China

[Anonymous Coward]

Absurdity to illustrate the problem with your thinking : "So we should leave Europe to Hitler, you mean ?"

I do hope you see the problem. Small countries have no reasonable hope to defend them against China, and it is plain to see what happens to countries that the US does not have the ability to protect

Which ones are those ? Simple : the US controls the oceans, so for the US countries that don't have a coastline (preferably a large one) are basically impossible to defend. Which ones are those in practice ? Tibet, Mongolia, and you might want to check exactly where the border with Afghanistan used to be located (and complaints that China is destroying minorities on their side of the border are ... well they're true, as are the reports that Chinese police operates, under army protection, easily 200 km into Afghanistan).

Why current world maps list Mongolia and Tibet as separate countries ... well it's beyond my understanding. Tibet has lost the war, and there will be less Tibetans than Jews in a matter of decades. Same goes for Mongolia. Xinjang will take a bit longer to get fully digested, but not that much longer. Even some regions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and India are de-facto conquered by China.

If the US "does not feel responsible" China will start an ethnic cleansing that is knocking at the door of the middle east. No country has either the will or the means to defend themselves, and frankly ...

Well, there's more than enough Chinese in the US. Not that the Chinese government listens to them, but you might want to talk to one about Tibet, or Pakistan, Xinjang and so on, ascertain their ideas about the future of these regions. I guarantee that the opinion "people have the right to determine their own future" is the minority opinion. And unless I've done something wrong, it's a tiny minority. Chinese do not want freedom (neither do Afghani of course, but a wise man asks the wolf, not the sheep, about future culinary preferences).

I realize this is from a computer game, but it's true nonetheless : "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". If you want to keep your own freedom, America will need to spread freedom around the world. And that means fighting, taxes, lives and a difficult balancing act inside the US for security services to do their job.

Re:US. vs China

[jamstar7]

Riiiight, it don't have a thing to do with all that oil, and the shitload of minerals found under Afghanistan, perish the thought! Nope just helping brown people because inside every brown person is an American just waiting to get out....it seems like I've heard that before somewhere.

No oil under Afghanistan that I know of, but the Russians tried taking it over so they could build a pipeline from the Siberian oil fields to the Indian Ocean, chopping off a couple thousand miles of pipeline needed if they were going to rout it to Archangel. And on top of it, they'd get to load their tankers in calmer waters than the subArtic Pacific...

Re:US. vs China

[cyn1c77]

Which country has attacked more countries. US or China?

Let's use a different set of metrics:

Which country has killed more people?

and

Which country has executed more of its own citizens?

Re:US. vs China

[jamstar7]

Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power?

We like to view China as an up-and-comer, but they're really a been-there-done-that situation. It's a 3000 year old country. They have a lot of strife and violence in their history for sure. That said, when it comes down to it, they've demonstrated the ability to have size and resources and power without letting it get to their head. Relative to their size and might, they've not demonstrated Britain's colonization drive, or the US's preference for invading random countries from time to time just to stay in shape.

Yeah, they had the size in the past, but never really had the power. Remember, back then, their tech was used mostly in supporting all those people they had even back then. China's been one of the most populated areas throughout known history. Feeding all those people with Dark Ages technology wasnt easy.

Re:US. vs China

[MaskedSlacker]

The price, however, would've been several times higher without the russians.

The price would have been roughly the same. It's just that we would have been paying it instead of the Russian.s

Re:US. vs China

[Ironhandx]

It should be noted that in comparison to the russian losses, these "massive" german losses you cite are a drop in the ocean.

The german average kill rate per soldier for german:russian was 1:26.

Yes, for every one german that died, 26 russians died. Not including civilians.

Re:US. vs China

[TapeCutter]

I realize this is from a computer game, but it's true nonetheless : "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

No, it's a quote from Thomas Jefferson, but some other parts of your post sound like they came from a computer game.

Re:US. vs China

[maestroX]

At least you're recognizing any claim or right excercised by the US in the last century (cause the US is at war for the last century, not recent years) is utter B.S.
Let me tell you, killing can't be justified; simply because there is no moral base to justify it on. Human universal rights aren't a menu a la carte.
As for the score US. vs China, China is still 2 nukes behind.

Re:US. vs China

[TapeCutter]

Yes, ancient Chinese maps show themselves as the centre of the universe for good reason. China had trade routes all over the Indian ocean as far away as Africa and the middle east before the Europeans had managed to round Cape Horn. It's a simple twist of fate that one of their Emperor's basically disbanded their navy in the 15th (?) century just as Europe started exploring the worlds oceans in earnest. Had they maintained their navy they would have had the jump on Europe's colonisation of the far east by several centuries.

Re:US. vs China

[gatkinso]

>> Define freed

As in the liberation of France.

Re:US. vs China

[gatkinso]

>> I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?

Resources. Perceived threats. Taiwan.

Re:US. vs China

[kermyt]

No oil under Afghanistan that I know of, but the Russians tried taking it over so they could build a pipeline from the Siberian oil fields to the Indian Ocean, chopping off a couple thousand miles of pipeline needed if they were going to rout it to Archangel. And on top of it, they'd get to load their tankers in calmer waters than the subArtic Pacific...

Exploitable wealth is not always oil. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

Re:US. vs China

[Riceballsan]

IMO Libya falls into that category. They did 70% of the legwork themselves. That strikes me as them standing up and showing they are ready for a change. Iraq, Afghanistan and pretty much everything else around there, I'm not so optimistic on. IMO freedom has to be earned, you can have some outside assistance but if you don't do the bulk of it, it just dosn't work. Who here wants to imagine telling with pride a story of America earning it's independence from Brittan, if our story were more like "And then the colonists hid inside their bunkers while the french defeated the british". French revolution, same thing. Admitted modern times don't bode as well for that (Due to the rapidly increasing gap between war weapons available to the government, and normal weaponry available to the people.

Re:US. vs China

[Geotopia]

"between two sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect"

Whether it's the US and China or the US and Iraq, there is the definition equal partnership. Neither respects the US (Hell, most Americans have no respect for the US) and the feeling is mutual.

Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[h00manist]

They are machines, and they carry weapons, No soldiers present.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[Kenja]

Who would have thought that the movie Toys was a grim warning from the future.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[myth24601]

Richard Pryor was hilarious in that movie.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[Kenja]

Naw, he was only a toy. It took Mork to be more then one.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[dthx1138]

Are you suggesting that Obama plans to leave unmanned airbases full of drones in Iraq for the purpose of continuing the war? Or that this would even be possible?

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear...

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[Bucky24]

Technically it could, if they hired third party contractors to service the drones.... I don't know if that's likely but it is a possibility.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[h00manist]

Are you suggesting that Obama plans to leave unmanned airbases full of drones in Iraq for the purpose of continuing the war? Or that this would even be possible?

No. I am suggesting governments speak at best in doublespeak, at worst in blatant lies. And reading between the lines is part of understanding what they say. It's been added to the conversation that 5000 "security contractors" are not soldiers, 17000 "embassy personnel" are not soldiers, and thus, it's not clear at all that US military activity in Iraq will end when the last "troops" leave. And so the military drones, satellites, information and psy ops, etc are quite possibly going to be part of the future picture as well - without even having to deploy any strategic truth.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[royallthefourth]

No, but it would probably be easy enough to have bases in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia that could strike there.
According to Wikipedia, a Predator drone "can fly up to 400 nautical miles (740 km) to a target, loiter overhead for 14 hours, then return to its base."

With this information and a quick look at a map, it looks like they could fly drones over everything but the eastern parts of Iraq pretty easily.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[artor3]

Embassy personnel aren't soldiers. They're diplomats and secretaries and cafeteria workers and IT admins and so on. That's not doublespeak. In fact, the only deception here is your use of scare quotes.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[elrous0]

I also hear that it will not stop.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[ShavedOrangutan]

Contractors, security, and military advisers are not technically soldiers either. I'd like to know how far this pull out goes. Either way, it will look good for the election, and it's not so close that people will ask why 6 months turned into 3 1/2 years.

If I were a voting Obama supporter, I would want a serious explanation of why Gitmo is still open.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the soldiers who guard the embassy; they might rank high in that 17,000 employee figure for all you know--but we can say we don't have any soldiers in Iraq--they're not really in Iraq because our embassy in Iraq is US property granted extraterritoriality by treaty.

That's the kind of doublespeak we do employ, you know.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[Rei]

They are machines, and they carry weapons, No soldiers present.

"They carry weapons and they know if you've been bad or good
Not everybody's good, but everyone tries!"

(Sorry, just getting in the holiday spirit!)

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

In part, Gitmo is still open because Congress stonewalled all of the Obama admin's attempts to close it. Those detainees have to go somewhere. The main proposal was to imprison them in the United States, but that required funding that in turn required congressional approval.

Obama of course doesn't get off the hook for giving up - he certainly didn't pursue the closing of Gitmo with the same fervor as he did for the healthcare changes he wanted.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[operagost]

But how the hell could you possibly need 17,000 of them? That's either serious government bloat or... yup, lies.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[kilfarsnar]

Don't forget about mercenaries, er, I mean contractors. They aren't soldiers either and they'll still be there.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[kilfarsnar]

They're also CIA.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[newcastlejon]

Those detainees have to go somewhere

How about a courtroom?

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[Dragonslicer]

Too many people don't want them in the prisons and courtrooms in their county. Apparently these people are more dangerous individuals than any serial murderer.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[tnk1]

Embassies generally have a fairly large intelligence component. There will be CIA there, as well as possibly NSA and other groups. There's zero chance that they'd pass up the opportunity of a completely occupied Iraq to make sure they are firmly established there after the troops leave.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[pluther]

How about a courtroom?

And here I am out of mod points.

Quite a few of us Obama supporters have been writing, calling, and petitioning him to do exactly that. Either these people are Prisoners of War, in which case they need to be treated as such, including decent accommodations with a complete lack of torture, or they are suspected criminals, in which case they need to be tried, in full accordance with the law.

So far, his only plan to "close" Gitmo is to open another Gitmo but with a different name. (Kinda like how Clinton responded to demands to close the School of the Americas by renaming it the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.)

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[toolo]

Iraq is not renewing 'diplomatic immunity' for any US citizen. Any security force would be stupid to stay.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[jbolden]

So what? We have CIA in countries we are at peace with. The same way many other countries have their intelligence operatives in the United States.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[rueger]

They are machines, and they carry weapons, No soldiers present.

Just for clarity, can you define just how much distance you need between the bullet and the person pulling the trigger before you can pretend that there are no people involved in the action?

Remote control assassinations from across the globe. Assassinations of American citizens abroad. Renditions to "friendly" countries for torture (And boy, one would think that Iraq now has "friendly" status, the infrastructure, and lots of trained experts in place to take on that role). Indefinite imprisonment of children without charges or trials.

Good thing you've got a President who takes the moral high ground.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[ooshna]

Yeah who would have thought a movie about a blind black guy and a deaf white guy could be so funny.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[izomiac]

What's there for a courtroom to decide? They're POWs, either de factor or de jure. A POW isn't what most people consider a criminal and there's no real question about innocence as they were captured in the act and identified later. US law shouldn't apply to foreign nationals, and opposing the US military isn't a crime unless you are an American. These people are (theoretically) considered a threat to the US, and are being detained for that reason. It's not "fair", but US military power exists to further the interests of the United States. OTOH, I don't think it's technically necessary for the US to even bother with POWs, so I suppose not killing them on the spot counts for something.

Now, all this assumes Gitmo is just holding POWs. I don't follow the news closely enough to verify that, and this speaks nothing of whether it is necessary or humane. Mostly, I am a little surprised at how people want to treat everyone like an American citizen, including subjecting them to our laws. While we're working on it, we don't exactly have a hegemony at this point.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong movie, that was "The Toy", Toys had Robin WIlliams AFAIR

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[MaskedSlacker]

Mostly, I am a little surprised at how people want to treat everyone like an American citizen, including subjecting them to our laws.

That's generally how it works--if I commit a crime under a foreign nation's laws and jurisdiction, I am liable to charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and punished in that jurisdiction.

The prisoners still in Gitmo fall under two categories--enemy combatants who were captured while fighting without being sanctioned by a foreign power to repatriate them to (i.e. there's no where to release them to, or in the case of Uighurs their home country will execute the shit out of them) or those suspected of violating American criminal law (providing material assistance to terrorists or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism generally). The latter group should be tried for those crimes, and imprisoned in proper prisons if convicted. Of course, most of the latter group has the same problem as the former group--there's no where to send them if they're exonerated.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[MaskedSlacker]

Just for clarity, can you define just how much distance you need between the bullet and the person pulling the trigger before you can pretend that there are no people involved in the action?

He never said people weren't involved, he said they weren't in Iraq. He's decoding government double speak, not defending it.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[sco08y]

Those detainees have to go somewhere

How about a courtroom?

Why should someone who is fighting out of uniform, and frequently committing war crimes to boot, get more protections that those fighting in uniform? That completely undermines the whole concept behind Geneva and Hague. Are any of you people even remotely concerned about this?

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[sco08y]

How about a courtroom?

And here I am out of mod points.

Quite a few of us Obama supporters have been writing, calling, and petitioning him to do exactly that.

He tried that, and it doesn't work. The civilian rules of evidence don't make sense for people captured on a battlefield because there's no way to maintain a chain of custody and discovery can get our intel people killed.

These guys are war criminals, the worst of the worst, and if a few innocent schmucks got stuck at the Guantanamo resort, they're getting fat and enjoying a nice vacation.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Some day the tables may be reversed. When it's our innocent schmucks being held in someone else's concentration camp, we'll be singing a different tune. At the least these guys should be afforded the geneva convention agreed-upon procedures/rights.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[sharkey]

And, dropping bombs from drones is "not hostile".

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers

[KingBenny]

wasnt this scheduled by the end of last year? and the year before ? and the year before ? and euh ...

Pax Romana

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a Roman military helmet icon?

Somehow, that seems ... appropriate.

Re:Pax Romana

[bennomatic]

When we went into Afghanistan, I told my friends we were entering into an era of Pax Americana.

Re:Pax Romana

[Attila Dimedici]

When we went into Afghanistan, I told my friends we were entering into an era of Pax Americana.

Then you were at least 50 years too late.

Re:Pax Romana

[RazzleFrog]

How does going into a war mean a period of peace? How does that make any sense? Maybe you don't know what the Pax Romana was?

Re:Pax Romana

[Frnknstn]

What do you call the last war before a long period of peace? That's right, it's called a 'war'.

I disagree with the GP post tho. I also disagree with yours.

Re:Pax Romana

[Anonymous Coward]

Pax Americana looked possible shortly after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed. Gulf-1 happened not long after that, and Iraq can be regarded as a completion of that conflict much as WW2 in Europe can be regarded as a completion of WW1. Iraq simmered with no-fly zones during the Clinton years. You could argue that the postwar (1946-1989) period is Pax Americana; but there really wasn't much peace. The US and USSR fought numerous proxy wars and battles over Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Central America, and probably a lot of others I can't think of off the top of my head.

Then again, the Pax Romana probably wasn't very peaceful either. I bet the Legions weren't just twiddling their thumbs. It's all relative.

Re:Pax Romana

[musicalmicah]

Actually, per capita deaths by war were far less in the past ten years than in quite possibly all of recorded history.

Re:Pax Romana

[RazzleFrog]

What about mine do you disagree with? Pax Romana was hundreds of years in relative peace after years of civil wars and expansion. Pax Americana has been used many times before (like after the Civil War and again after WWII) but it never has lasted anywhere near as long - and going to war in Afghanistan obviously is contradictory to peace.

Re:Pax Romana

[MaskedSlacker]

You're the only one here who doesn't understand the Pax Romana. The Pax Romana was NOT a period of peace FOR the Roman Empire. It was a period of peace WITHIN the Roman Empire. There were constant border wars in the far-flung territories all the way through the period. There was peace IN THE CITY OF ROME (and really all of Italy, Greece, Spain, Gaul, and the African Provinces--in the Middle East, Britain, Dacia, and Germania there wars aplenty). That is what the Pax Romana was.

Re:Pax Romana

[rossdee]

Nope, its a greek bronze helmet, from a few centuries earlier than Rome

Re:Pax Romana

[Frnknstn]

you said:

[quote]How does going into a war mean a period of peace?[quote]

That is what I disagree with. The [i]pax romana[/i] was won by agressive expansionism, and wars to pacify the provinces. That placed it in a state where peace could largely be enjoyed throughout the empire.

It could therfore be argued that the war in Afganistan could mark the start of a [i]pax americana[/i].

Of course, the peace was kept through propaganda and social engineering, but that's a story for another time.

Re:Pax Romana

[Attila Dimedici]

That may be, but it is likely that future historians will refer to the period beginning shortly after WWII until some date in the future (current trends suggest near future, but that is up to the American electorate) as "Pax Americana".

Re:Pax Romana

[johnlcallaway]

And what most anti-war propagandists fail to mention is that in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian deaths are higher because the other side doesn't play by the Geneva convention. They live amongst the population and don't wear uniforms, making it very difficult to determine who is the bad guy and who isn't.

The group most responsible for civilian deaths in these areas are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because of their cowardly nature to hide among women and children and not identify themselves. Allied forces live in camps and wear uniforms, making them easy targets, yet are quickly condemned by the anti-war group if they so much as think about doing anything that might possibly harm a civilian. Yet they never bring the same condemnation against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who are the real cause of deaths among the local population.

Re:Pax Romana

[Culture20]

And what most anti-war propagandists fail to mention is that in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian deaths are higher because the other side doesn't play by the Geneva convention. They live amongst the population and don't wear uniforms, making it very difficult to determine who is the bad guy and who isn't.

The group most responsible for civilian deaths in these areas are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because of their cowardly nature to hide among women and children and not identify themselves. Allied forces live in camps and wear uniforms, making them easy targets, yet are quickly condemned by the anti-war group if they so much as think about doing anything that might possibly harm a civilian. Yet they never bring the same condemnation against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who are the real cause of deaths among the local population.

Not to mention the Taliban and Al-Qaeda specifically target civilians because they are easy targets (yes, even in the local population; if the targets are wealthy and can be ransomed or if they're not wearing the right clothing).

Re:Pax Romana

[RazzleFrog]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Pax Romana was a time of little expansion - sure there were minor wars/skirmishes but there wasn't the rapid expansion as under and before Julius Caesar. It was a time of relative peace and lack of expansion. There is no such thing as complete peace in any time of known human history.

Re:Pax Romana

[RazzleFrog]

But the start of the Pax Romana was AFTER all the big expansion wars. You are saying that Afghanistan was the last major colonialist war that the US is ever going to get into? That seems highly optimistic.

And "social engineering" is the only way we are ever going to end this "war on terrorism". We are undoing the engineering done by the Muslim extremists who are twisting the Koran (and at time contradicting it) to their own ends. If you read "Three cups of Tea" or "Stones for Schools" you'll start to think the only way to win is to educate their women.

Re:Pax Romana

[Frnknstn]

Once again, Sir, I disagreed with the original post you replied to. Clearly, Afganistan was not the 'last major colonialist war' as it was quickly followed by a trillion-dollar Iraqi war.

Immunity

[aBaldrich]

Why do you need immunity if you're not planning to do anything wrong?

Re:Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

To protect US citizens from the government. In the US, we have juries to do that. In another country, they are not guaranteed an attempt at a fair trial.

Re:Immunity

[Synerg1y]

Because a soldier's primary function is to kill his/her enemy and most countries find that illegal, so all we are saying is if you want a fighting force left, we need to allow them to shoot anyone on site. Sounds harsh, but picture yourself in the boots of a soldier if you can.

Re:Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Same reason we won't support the World Court. We can't have something like other people's laws telling us what we can and can't do. We're too busy ignoring our own laws to worry about that.

Re:Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus it allows the soldiers to act like complete dicks while on leave in the nearby towns, the same way they act in japan.

Re:Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "wrong" might include reading the Bible, allowing women to uncover their faces, refusing to pray to Allah at the appointed times, or criticizing the government.

Do we really want US soldiers accountable to Shariah law?

Re:Immunity

[Synerg1y]

More or less, remember they are subject to military law though, the problem there is if your a sergeant in another country and one of your men gets in a fight, somebody you've fought with, would you snitch them out? Doubtful, the US military has a pretty effective code of silence in regards, just think back to the torture stories and the military cover up.

Re:Immunity

[Q-Hack!]

Not really, that has more to do with the fact that we keep our military personnel confined to Base/Post/Ship for days on end and then let them free on 'liberty' for some R&R. All the SOFA does is tell the host country that they must turn over the soldier to the US for trial. It doesn't stop them from being arrested for doing illegal things.

Re:Immunity

[dkleinsc]

we need to allow them to shoot anyone on site

I assume you mean "Shoot people according to the rules of engagement", right? The US has treaty obligations that make it very clear that mowing down civilians is not ok. I'm not saying they don't do that kind of thing, but that's not supposed to be the way it works.

Re:Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

As well as cutting cable car lines with a jet and watching the occupants of the cable car fall to their death.

Re:Immunity

[jellomizer]

For one.
Who honestly thinks during war any Country including the United States was a pure good group people who never did anything wrong? If you do then you are an idiot. You take a person, you give him a gun, you back him up with thousand of other people with guns, place him in a situation were other people are going to try to kill him. He will bend the rules to the breaking point to survive and if they have a lot of people backing him up he can really test how far it will bend.
When we go to war, having troops who break the laws is expected and is usually factored into the calculation, it just isn't publicized as it isn't PC. Immunity makes sure these people can come back home and lot of them will live normal honest lives when they are outside that environment.

Secondly.
If they are a good person, they will be following US law and orders. Not the other countries laws and orders. So for example it may be illegal to eat pork in the country but while the troops are there they had their monthly Pork Ribs BBQ. or the fact they are hunting down an enemy and had to break into a bunch of peoples houses to get the job done. Immunity will stop the defeated country from being a dick and wrap the US up in decades of legal hearings, or imprison good people.

Third.
For the people who have been committing crimes will need to deal with US court. Where the rules are what they know of and sure that it isn't a show trial.

Third.

Re:Immunity

[medcalf]

To be blunt, because Iraqi factions include some who are aligned with us, and others who are aligned against us (and generally with Iran). You need immunity to prevent those factions not aligned with us from using prosecutions of our troops on trumped up charges to manipulate us.

Re:Immunity

[Chris Burke]

Why do you need immunity if you're not planning to do anything wrong?

I may not be planning on doing anything wrong according to my definition of wrong, but that doesn't mean I want to be subject to your definition of wrong.

Whether you believe the U.S. military has no such intention, or that their -- or the Iraqi government's -- definition of "wrong" is a valid one, that is the fundamental issue.

Personally I think getting all of our troops out of the country is the perfect resolution to the problem.

Re:Immunity

[haystor]

Not just watching it, but filming it, then destroying the film.

Re:Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

The World Court is a ridiculous idea though.

Re:Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, no. [anecdote time] My uncles were in Vietnam. They'd regularly bring a bunch of guys up in a helicopter and would just toss them out one by one until someone started talking (in English). Rules of engagement? Seriously? Not bloody likely.

Re:Immunity

[operagost]

We can't have something like other people's laws telling us what we can and can't do in our own country.

FTFY

Re:Immunity

[Eunuchswear]

To protect US citizens from the government. In the US, we have juries to do that. In another country, they are not guaranteed an attempt at a fair trial.

'cos the US is the only country on earth with juries and fair trials.

And the US government has no influence at all over the Iraqi government.

And US soldiers, spies and mercenaries have no history of massacre, murder and rape in the region.

(By the way, if the US has no confidence in the justice of the Iraqi government it put into power whose fault is that?)

Re:Immunity

[Eunuchswear]

Oooh look, anonymous coward is telling war stories.

Does it make your little pee-pee get all big (4cm) when you tell these silly stories?

Re:Immunity

[Eunuchswear]

Why not?

(None of the things you cite are against sharia law of course).

Re:Immunity

[xstonedogx]

You think 4cm is a big pee-pee? Man, I should be doing porn I guess.

Re:Immunity

[Tom]

I understand fully the intent to not be tried by the laws of a country you just conquered. Heck, the basic thing you did there was illegal, who cares about the minor details that were likewise?

However, there's such a thing as international law, and conventions. Stuff that is not the equivalent of pork being illegal or women having to dress in a certain way. Stuff like not killing or raping people just because you can.

And immunity is too easy a way out there. It may seem obvious that you'd want those bad apples tried in a US court which you trust, according to the court system you trust. However, you are denying the victims or their families to have the culprit tried in one of their courts that they trust (well, maybe, but you get the point).

Your points are all valid.

They just ignore the equally valid points that the victims of non-trivial crimes have.

Re:Immunity

[Tom]

I understand fully the intent to not be tried by the laws of a country you just conquered. Heck, the basic thing you did there was illegal, who cares about the minor details that were likewise?

However, there's such a thing as international law, and conventions. Stuff that is not the equivalent of pork being illegal or women having to dress in a certain way. Stuff like not killing or raping people just because you can.

So what about the cases where "their" definition of wrong is quite agreeable? You can't seriously demand that some peasant in backwater Iraq, who's happy if he has running water twice a week, brings a lawsuit in a US court. He simply doesn't have any realistic way of doing that.

A lot of real crimes will go unpunished.

Yes, that is normal in a war.

Just stop pretending. This is not at all about not being tried for breaking the Sabbath. It's about protecting murderers, rapists and other criminals because we don't really want the public to know how horrible war is.

Re:Immunity

[Eunuchswear]

For an AC it's enormous.

Re:Immunity

[cavePrisoner]

This isn't Vietnam. There are rules. Seriously, things are a lot different now. They're even a lot different from the start of the war. I know rules aren't always followed, but that stems from the fact that people (including soldiers) like to live, not that they just like killing people.

Re:Immunity

[Archangel Michael]

Current rules of engagement are deadly to troops, and civilians still get killed. They don't protect anyone, and just make a bad situation worse.

Imagine the following(true story), Troops patrolling a city come under fire from a small building. As they close in a bunch of "farmers" come out of the building hands raised and no weapons. Troops are not allowed to shoot OR capture them, because they don't have POSITIVE PROOF that those "farmers" were the insurgents (or whatever they are called this week). Rules of engagement are "those are farmers, leave them alone" when everyone knows they are not civilians, let alone farmers.

And you can't blow the building up, without making sure it doesn't have civilians, after all, it is a school, mosque, medical clinic .... or whatever. They know exactly what are rules are and use them against us.

Re:Immunity

[martin-boundary]

But it stops them from being prosecuted for raping schoolgirls. As a parent, do you prefer if a rapist is tried by the laws of your own country, or shipped overseas to face unspecified disciplinary action? Immunity for US troops is wrong.

Re:Immunity

[martin-boundary]

Do we really want US soldiers accountable to Shariah law?

Yes of course. When in Rome...

A US soldier should be like any other tourist, accountable to whichever laws of the land apply. Don't go to a country if you can't abide by their rules.

Now you might say, the soldier can't choose not to go there if his commanders tell him to go, which is fair enough. But that just changes the issue to: don't volunteer for the military if you can't accept the consequences.

I always comes down to accepting personal responsibility.

Re:Immunity

[blind monkey 3]

To protect US citizens from the government. In the US, we have juries to do that. In another country, they are not guaranteed an attempt at a fair trial.

Didn't we bring democracy and freedom to Iraq? I guess fair trials aren't included in the package.

Re:Immunity

[Obfuscant]

'cos the US is the only country on earth with juries and fair trials.

'cos the US has diplomats in many countries that don't. 'cos the US grants diplomatic immunity to those countries when they have diplomats here. 'cos Iraq could easily turn into a country that has neither trials nor juries. 'cos its peaceful neighbor Iran has problems with the same thing.

And US soldiers, spies and mercenaries have no history of massacre, murder and rape in the region.

Not the massive, overwhelming kind that your statement implies.

Re:Immunity

[RobinEggs]

Funny you should be talking about penis size, Eunuchswear....

Re:Immunity

[shaitand]

"cos the US grants diplomatic immunity to those countries when they have diplomats here"

We are talking about soldiers not diplomats.

Re:Immunity

[Aryden]

given the fact that the UCMJ sees rape as a capitol crime, you can be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. I'd go with UCMJ justice preferably if my daughter was raped by a soldier. Having BEEN a soldier (Army 3rd BN, 75th Ranger RGT), I can tell you flat out that there is no state in the union that has penalties, for the majority of offenses, as harsh as the UCMJ. Not to mention the fact that, if you are caught, tried and convicted of a crime in civilian courts, under the UCMJ, you can be tried, convicted and sentenced a second time by the military. It is not double jeopardy because you technically committed 2 crimes with 1 act.

Allow me to break it down very simply for you all; if you, as a male soldier, are overheard by a female using expletives (fuck, bitch), you can be tried AND convicted of sexual harassment under the UCMJ. The penalty for which is prison and dishonorable discharge.

For that matter, bounce a check and see what happens... you get a $250 fine on the company level, restricted duty and pull an article that can and will stay on your military record.

Re:Immunity

[smash]

News flash: if the US government doesn't want you to have a fair trial, they call you an unlawful combatant or a terrorist and ship you off to guantanamo to have an unfair trial.

Re:Immunity

[smash]

You mean like the geneva convention?

Re:Immunity

[smash]

You think? How much media coverage is OWS getting at the moment? And thats in your OWN country. If there's shit going down overseas that isn't politically desirable for the public in your country to know, do you really think the major media corporations are going to be reporting it?

Re:Immunity

[cavreader]

International Laws are nothing more than pieces of paper. Laws require the ability to enforce them which does not exist today. International Laws also require a country to relinquish their sovereignty which will never happen. International laws and organizations like the ICC are driven by politics not justice.

Re:Immunity

[martin-boundary]

Not necessarily. In some cultures, it's acceptable and/or expected that the culprit should pay a sum of money to the victim as compensation. If the soldier was always punished by the UCMJ, this would do _further_ wrong to the victim who doesn't get compensated on top of the previous offence.

In general, it makes more sense to abide by local laws rather than foreign ones.

Re:Immunity

[Tom]

You've had too much of the propaganda machine.

The reasons the US is in bed with countries like Yemen on the matter of the ICC are political. The ICC itself is not perfect, but a big step forward to get rid of the bully mentality. Of course, the bully himself doesn't like that.

Re:Immunity

[TheSpoom]

Are you seriously saying that Iraq should be forced to treat foreign soldiers on the same level as UN diplomats?

Re:Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows you beat your wife.

Re:Immunity

[cavreader]

The ICC mandate is to prosecute criminal actions in other countries if the country where the alleged crime was committed doesn't prosecute it. However, if the country involved has investigated the accusations and decided not to prosecute the ICC can claim jurisdiction. A case such as this would effectively allow double jeopardy which is specifically prohibited in the US judicial system. Your "bully mentality" remark is nothing but the end result of the never ending propaganda effort that allows other countries to blame all of their problems on a 3rd party which usually means the US. Thankfully this trend is creating an bipartisan political support for the US to scale back it's international footprint and finally let others deal with their own problems for a change.

Re:Immunity

[Tom]

Of course the ICC prosecutes crime that some country doesn't. That's the whole point. It was created so dictators couldn't go about their merry genocidal ways by making their actions legal in the country they ruled.
The "feature" of the judicial system you laud is exactly what allows these people to get away with it.

Oh, and do I need to point out that the whole idea is american? The Statute of Rome is a direct consequence of the Nuremberg trials, which are considered questionable by some legal scholars exactly because what the Nazis did was legal in Germany at that time.

So, your choice: Either you can prosecute Nazis via some kind of international law, or you can totally respect national laws and that means accepting that what people like them do is legal in their country.

Your only other option is hypocrisy - not accepting the rules you force on others when they inconvenience yourself. And that's the bully mentality.

Thankfully this trend is creating an bipartisan political support for the US to scale back it's international footprint and finally let others deal with their own problems for a change.

Frankly, most of the rest of the world wants nothing more. The whole Al Qaida thing? The original intent of Osama bin Laden was to make the US leave the holy sites of Islam. Anti-American sentiments in Europe? All caused by your tendency to meddle in things that aren't yours. Why do you think Europeans would dislike the US? Your comedy is bad, but not that bad, and we kind of like Coke and computers.

Re:Immunity

[cavreader]

"dictators couldn't go about their merry genocidal ways by making their actions legal in the country they ruled." The ICC does not have the means to enforce there judgment. The ICC can issue all the accusations and charges they want but unless they can arrest the dictator and bring him to court the dictator will be able to continue running his country any way he wants. Laws, both international and domestic, are meaningless without the ability to apply force when needed to enforce the law. I don't care about anti-US sentiments in Europe or any other place in the world. I visited 14 countries over the past 3 years and the only animosity I encountered was from a drunk in an English pub. For some reason he was determined to blame me for all the US actions. However, once I explained to him that I was not the guy in charge and nobody in the US government solicited my opinion prior to making their decisions he went away.

Re:Immunity

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, EVERYONE knows my wife beats me. She does it in public ;)

Re:Immunity

[Tom]

The ICC does not have the means to enforce there judgment.

Neither does any other court. It's called separation of powers and we as a civilization are fairly proud of it.

Laws, both international and domestic, are meaningless without the ability to apply force when needed to enforce the law.

Which is why the ICC is accompanied by an international treaty that countries sign - almost all non-tyranny countries on the planet have signed up, I think the US is the only democracy that hasn't. Enforcement is a part of the treaty.

I visited 14 countries over the past 3 years and the only animosity I encountered was from a drunk in an English pub.

Very few europeans are openly anti-american. However, the unrestricted love and admiration that once existed has quite dropped. Not to the point that many would actually be unfriendly to any particular american - most of us realize that what we dislike is the whole, not the parts. But american international politics, for example, has very few fans.

Re:Immunity

[Aryden]

Right but you can't just blanketly state that. For some local crimes, they may hang you or cut off a hand, or other seemingly abusive punishment. So what do you do, go country by country, city by city and say this law applies here but this law doesn't, this document has jurisdiction but this one doesn't. That would be a massive pain in the ass.

Not to mention, if you go by the local law only, then you WILL have situations where a soldier may say "to hell with it, they are just gonna charge me $500..."

You know..

[intellitech]

This is NOT the first time an administration has said that.

Until it actually happens, I won't believe them.

Re:You know..

[93 Escort Wagon]

This is NOT the first time an administration has said that.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's a negotiating ploy. Assuming the Iraqis cave on the immunity issue, we'll change our minds and leave advisors there.

Re:You know..

[i kan reed]

Yes, but at least the date above is the same date that the Obama administration has been giving for this action since inauguration(I can't find any reference to specifically this time prior to that). Politicians lie, but this would be a pretty dumb time for Obama to do it.

Re:You know..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the go-along-to-get-along stuff is leaving the White House building with Bill Daley. Hardball from here on out!

Re:You know..

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the date has been same is because it was agreed to with the Iraqi government a couple of months before Obama was elected. The only change is the Iraqi's are kicking out the few troops they agreed to keep before, but the general exit framework has been in place for a while.
As it presently stands the US army is an invited guest of the Iraqi government, and they have said for 3 years that 2012 will be our exit date. There is no way the US would violate this (moon bat ravings aside) as it would be an international scandal. Really this isn't even news.

Re:You know..

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not moving the troops, either. They are simply reclassifying them, remaining as either NATO or UN peacekeepers, not as US troops, It's just a matter of paper shuffling.

Re:You know..

[dthx1138]

I don't recall either this administration or the previous one ever promising to have all troops out of Iraq by a certain date and then backing down. The refusal of a pullout date was the problem. From what I recall, Obama promised to begin ending the war as soon as he took office, which is why he removed 2/3 of the troops almost immediately.

Even if we kept a few thousand advisers in the country, at the request of said nation's government, that shouldn't automatically be defined as a continued war. You know we still have troops in Korea, right?

Regardless, I'm glad they're all coming home so we can finally put the damned thing behind us.

Re:You know..

[StingingNettle]

Yes, but at least the date above is the same date that the Obama administration has been giving for this action since inauguration(I can't find any reference to specifically this time prior to that). Politicians lie, but this would be a pretty dumb time for Obama to do it.

Sure, but the speeches he was giving before his inauguration called for leaving within his first year of office.

Re:You know..

[i kan reed]

I agree, I didn't want to get into assigning credit, because it's stupid to assign credit for ending a pointless war. All you really can say is "about time".

Re:You know..

[i kan reed]

Cite please? It's always good to hold politicians accountable to what they promised, but I don't recall anything more specific than "beginning withdrawal", which technically was already started a little before 2009.

Re:You know..

[geekoid]

When.? when else did he say that?

Re:You know..

[DaHat]

You must not have been paying attention to the campaign much... like watching one of the debates... or him in the Senate where he proposed a bill that would have had all troops out by March 31st, 2008.

Re:You know..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm inclined to believe them this time, I guess they're probably just preparing for the next war they will launch.

Re:You know..

[bill_mcgonigle]

This is NOT the first time an administration has said that.

Yeah, but now that Osama bin Laden is dead, he can't plan and launch any more attacks from his secret al'Qa'eda bases in Iraq, so it's OK to leave this time.

Re:You know..

[bill_mcgonigle]

When.? when else did he say that?

'He'? That's not what the GP said, but I guess Eisenhower would suffice.

Re:You know..

[Hatta]

August 2nd, 2010. Obama promised that all "combat troops" would depart by the end of that month. Today we still have troops on the ground who are armed for combat, trained for combat, prepared for combat, and receiving combat pay. Obama lied.

Re:You know..

[jittles]

Don't believe them. I work closely with the military and I know that they are A) Reopening a closed AFB in Kuwait, to provide air support over Iraq. So that means that we will still have troops deployed, they just will not be in Iraq directly. B) The State dept is opening the "largest embassy" as the people I know like to call it. They are taking over military bases in Iraq as the army and other groups leave.

Re:You know..

[modmans2ndcoming]

We have been drawing down since August 2010... WTF are you skeptical of? We have 39,000 non-combat troops in theater right now and have not engaged in any combat since August 2010.

Re:You know..

[modmans2ndcoming]

Actually.... Bush agreed to a later date. This date has been the same because we have been drawing down since August 2010 and have not been in any combat since then.

Re:You know..

[modmans2ndcoming]

And guess what... all combat troops WERE out by the end of August. you are just the dumb fuck who does not under stand the meaning of COMBAT TROOPS.

We have not been engaged in any combat since the end of August 2010.

Re:You know..

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama can be trusted about as far as you can throw him. Too many lies and deception. He's done enough to qualify for impeachment.......

Re:You know..

[dogmatixpsych]

The parent poster said "an administration" not "this administration". Besides, Pres. Obama campaigned on the promise to remove troops from Iraq starting the day he got in office and that they'd be out of Iraq that year (2009). Now it turns out that Pres. Obama simply followed the plan Pres. Bush's administration put in place for withdrawal.

Re:You know..

[dlt074]

i do not think you understand how the US Army is set up. i assure you there have been US soldiers engaged in combat since the withdrawal of "combat troop" from iraq. there have even been US soldier combat deaths.

it's word play. the only combat troops taken out of Iraq where organizations with the word "combat" in their names. all US soldiers are combat troops. it's our first MOS.

Re:You know..

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a contractor in Afghanistan, but we also have people in Iraq. I say "have", but it should be "had", because they are being pulled out of there as fast as they can find new positions for them elsewhere in the Middle East (Kuwait, Qatar, Afghanistan, Doha, etc). So yes, it is happening. We'll see if we *stay* out, though.

Re:You know..

[modmans2ndcoming]

troops dying is not the same thing as troops engaging the enemy in a planned attack.

Also... yes I am aware that a mechanic and a doctor and even security units are trained and equipped to fight... but we have not been going on seek and destroy missions or extraction missions, or anything of that nature... we have been busy withdrawing all our troops for the last year.

Re:You know..

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you get all uppity about someone bashing Obama, please be aware that he said "an" and not "this".

5000 soldiers

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

and 70,000 'contractors'

Re:5000 soldiers

[Zenaku]

You didn't RTFA (standard practice) but you didn't RTFS either. The whole reason this is news is because the US will NOT be leaving 5000 troops behind. The administration was unable to reach an agreement granting immunity to US troops, and so will instead be leaving behind only about 150, to "assist with arms sales."

None of the articles I read mentioned contractors, though, so your number on that is probably not far off.

Re:5000 soldiers

[Q-Hack!]

There is a huge difference between a soldier carrying a gun and an unarmed contractor repairing the infrastructure.

Re:5000 soldiers

[mrquagmire]

There will be 5,500 mercenaries and 17,000 "individuals," working for the embassy. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/5500-mercs-to-protect-u-s-fortresses-in-iraq/

Re:5000 soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you have to keep the guys that actually get the work done, right?

Re:5000 soldiers

[Rei]

Speaking as a contractor, l can tell you a contractor's personal politics comes into play heavily when choosing jobs.

Three weeks ago, l was offered a job up in the hills. Beautiful house. Tons of property. A simple re-shingling job. They told me if l could finish it in one day, l would double my price. Then l realized whose house it was. Dominic Bambino's. The money was right, but the risk was too high. I knew who he was, and based on that, I turned the job over to a friend. The next week, the Foresie family put a hit on Baby Face's house. My friend was shot and killed. Didn't even finish re-shingling. I'm alive because l knew the risk involved in that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky.

Any contractor working in Iraq knew the risk involved. If they got killed, it's their own fault.

Re:5000 soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

Well we did win the country - time we now get some contracts!

Re:5000 soldiers

[cayenne8]

Then l realized whose house it was. Dominic Bambino's.

Who is this?

Google search didn't turn up too much on the name...is he a rapper or something?

Re:5000 soldiers

[k6mfw]

That article at wired.com and I was talking to someone that worked military and other similar (now retired and living in France), he mentioned we have a problem when our embassies have to be fortresses. If you have a home in a neighborhood that has to be a fortress and protected by "goons" then it is you that has a problem and not the neighborhood.

Re:5000 soldiers

[Anonymous Coward]

The money was right, but the risk was too high. I knew who he was, and based on that, I turned the job over to a friend. The next week, the Foresie family put a hit on Baby Face's house. My friend was shot and killed

Glad I'm not "your" friend :)

Re:5000 soldiers

[Anguirel]

Try searching for Kevin Smith and Clerks first. Or just read this: http://www.whysanity.net/monos/clerks5.html

Re:5000 soldiers

[Hognoxious]

I thought it was a lame reference to Star Wars, but one thing's sure - with friends like him you don't need enemies.

Re:5000 soldiers

[amiga3D]

I'd say. If people are driving by blowing up bombs at my gate and lobbing grenades and satchel charges over my wall, that's obviously a problem.

Re:5000 soldiers

[amiga3D]

Who is we? We won't be getting anything except the bill. A few rich fuckers will get richer though.

Of course.

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, there is plenty of unrest at home that needs quelling.

Next phase

[Anonymous Coward]

War is over, country is destroyed. Time to send corporations to rebuild it, and do it 'the american way' (tm) this time.

Re:Next phase

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the country isnt destroyed...

The New Math?

[Hartree]

Regarding the summary:

When I learned arithmetic, 3 to 5 thousand remaining was not "all".

Re:The New Math?

[Q-Hack!]

I think you missed the part where we couldn't come to terms with Iraq on the Status Of Forces Agreement. Therefore we are pulling out all troops. The original 3-5k discussed wont be staying now.

Re:The New Math?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the earlier plan which was scuttled when they couldn't agree on immunity from prosecution for the servicemembers who would stay.

How about ending foreign aid to Iraq also?

[Squidlips]

That should clear out the profiteering contractors...

Yeah, he was supposed to...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just sticking to the previous administrations timeline: All US Forces are mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

Same old mind fade:

[Hartree]

My bad. I misread the article.

Re:Same old mind fade:

[Anonymous Coward]

don't lie, you didn't read it at all :P

Re:Same old mind fade:

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. The New Reading? :p

Re:Same old mind fade:

[Hartree]

"The New Reading?"

Nah. Just the same old stupid human. ;)

Re:Same old mind fade:

[Hartree]

It should have said misread the summary.

This is why you shouldn't post when home sick from work. The results are a lot like posting while drunk. It's just a lot less pleasant.

Well, that's a clever tactic.

[subreality]

Sure we'll stay, as long as you give us the right to rape, pillage and murder with no consequences. Oh, you've decided it's time for us to go home? Well, we know it's gonna be a rough time, but of course we'll honor your wishes. OK, see you next decade!

(takes off and buries a couple WMDs in the desert so they can be "found" again when needed, should have done that last time)

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[RazzleFrog]

Soldiers still have to answer to US laws (theoretically of course). This just means they wouldn't have to answer to Iraqi laws. Imagine if Iraq passed a law that said all women must wear long pants and decides to arrest a female soldier in shorts.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[blair1q]

>rape, pillage and murder with no consequences

The military tries and jails people for those things. They just don't want the locals doing it.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[subreality]

Yeah, god knows they might convict someone.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how the loudest and most outspoken critics have never worn a uniform.

Rape, pillage and murder? Lets take any city in the us thats similar to the size of baghdad and compare the number of rapes between the two cities.

Do you know that a female with an exposed face or a female caught going somewhere without a male escort is a crime in most middle eastern countries. How would you feel if every female american soldier was put in jail and placed on trial for these crimes? I'm sure you wouldnt care because you would never have to leave the safety of your computer chair.

You obviously just spurt mindless bullshit from your fingers and have no idea what is actually going on in the world.

Written by an american soldier in Iraq.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[subreality]

I'm not criticizing the soldiers at all, actually. I'm just making a cynical joke of our foreign policy, which has, quite frankly, become a cynical joke.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[Pseudonym Authority]

give us the right to rape, pillage and murder with no consequences

Those things would be handled by a military tribunal. The immunity is sought in order to prevent US soldiers from being hanged by a foreign court that hates them, for a minor offense. A reasonable demand IMHO, as we did just overthrow their country, there is plenty of, justifiable, hate towards Americans there.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[wzinc]

Become a solider so you can help these things not happen!

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is people actually believe shit like this.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[Anonymous Coward]

why, do you have, so many random unnecessary,, commas,?

lol captcha = puzzle

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones that did do this durring the war HAVE been convicted under US law and are now in US prison, but hey.. why let reality seem into a sub-par rant..

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[Pseudonym Authority]

It looked good when I was writing it? I am usually a wizard of perfect grammar; please forgive me AC.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[subreality]

Erm, no. I think if everyone quit becoming soldiers it would help these things not happen.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[subreality]

Indeed, why let it? Was the bit about burying WMDs in the desert too subtle an indicator that this wasn't mean to be taken too seriously?

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[wzinc]

You can't stop "rape, pillage and murder with no consequences" with a slashdot post.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[subreality]

It has about the same level of effect as joining the military would. (Essentially none)

In any case, the whole point of my post was a cynical and sarcastic jab at US foreign policy. I'm surprised that everyone's trying to pick it apart as if I was serious. :/

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic.

[j1m 5n0w]

Quite true. As I understand it, members of the United States military are subject to the uniform code of military justice, and we typically require soldiers to have immunity from local laws as a condition of us maintaining a military base on foreign soil. In the case of Iraq, they as a sovereign nation decided not to grant that immunity, so we're leaving.

I'm not so sure what the situation is for contractors. I believe there were a few embarrassing events where private security personnel killed civilians and, not being subject to either local laws or the UCMJ, there was no way to charge them with a crime. I don't know if Iraq has relinquished immunity from contractors since then.

What happens to the embassy area?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am curious to know what happens to what I understand is a really really large embassy area in Iraq.

Re:What happens to the embassy area?

[pr0f3550r]

The embassy constitutes US soil within a foreign land. Troops stationed there are technically on 'American soil'. For the same reason, we can firmly declare that we have no troops occupying Cuba even though there are thousands of Troops at Guantanamo Bay. It is US soil.

Re:What happens to the embassy area?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems fair to me, that it ought to be possible to revoke such priviliges and I wonder how that could even play out. Are there even rules these kinds of issues I wonder.

Re:What happens to the embassy area?

[shaitand]

We lease Guantanamo Bay, so technically it remains cuban soil. That is how we excuse the horrible things we there.
 

Unless...

[bragr]

Unless they renegotiate the security deal at the last moment. Politicians the world over seemed to like to make last minute deals so that both sides can claim victory.

Leaving Iraq again?

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is somehow "technical" news/information that as a sysadmin, I just can't wait to learn?

About time, but...

[cobrausn]

With several friends having just been called up to be deployed in Afghanistan, I'm still just a bit cynical about any talks of ending the wars. I'll believe it when it happens.

Re:About time, but...

[RazzleFrog]

Afghanistan is not actually part of Iraq. If you look on a map you'll find it is a completely different country. I know most people suck at geography but you'll have to trust me on this.

Afghanistan is a whole other war - one that we probably are more justified in being involved with since the Taliban was happily hiding Al Qaeda - the supposed real threat to the US. The Taliban are pretty much worse that Saddam, Osama, and Qaddafi combined. The atrocities they've committed on women are horrific.

Re:About time, but...

[cobrausn]

Really? Different countries? Never knew that hurrrr... Seriously, go fuck yourself with that snarky bullshit. It's part of the reason I rarely bother with this fucking place anymore - the signal to snarky asshat noise ratio is far too low.

Anyway, ending the war in Iraq is a nice move, and it should have happened a long time ago, but means nothing if we're just going to scale up our war effort elsewhere. We will be taking our soldiers out of Iraq and deploying them at other 'trouble spots' around the globe. It's a shell game at best. We will never be without enemies and people who hate us, and the world will never be without douchebags who need a bullet to the head, but it is not our fucking business to go around dictating which ones are the douchebags that get the bullet. It's a problem for the region and a problem for the international community.

Afghanistan is scaling up when we should be getting out. The Taliban is more or less broken and Osama is dead. I'm sure there are plenty of other places in the world where horrible atrocities are committed all the time that we can go invade if you insist on being a neo-con about it.

Re:About time, but...

[RazzleFrog]

Well honestly based on your comment I didn't know if you really DID realize that they were two unrelated wars. Your statement was a completely non-sequitur.

And Afghanistan is a problem we created in the first place LONG ago by helping them push the Russians out without putting an alternative into place. Taliban took control and trust me - there aren't much worse in the way of atrocities you can commit there. What's worse is they (along with Pakistan our supposed ally) were harboring the people who actually were successfully attacking us - both on 9/11 and abroad on several instances. We couldn't just leave them there. If you think about it - there is nothing else of value in Afghanistan. It's not oil rich or anything else rich. We are there to defeat our enemies and put in place a solid government like we should have 30+ years ago.

Re:About time, but...

[geekoid]

You [post deserved the snark.
I was unrelated statement. Maybe you should stop posting dumb shit?

And stop lying. rarely come here, my ass. you do know people can check your post history, right?
mister posts almost every week.

Re:About time, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well honestly based on your comment I didn't know if you really DID realize that they were two unrelated wars.

Thats because you are stupid, while assuming that its other people that are. Fucking amazing.

Re:About time, but...

[operagost]

It's not unrelated. His opinion is that, considering how the war in both countries has dragged out, he remains skeptical of any talk of leaving EITHER. It's relevant to his opinion on the report. This only requires moderate reading comprehension, which you and Sir Razzlefrog the Snarky appear to lack.

Re:About time, but...

[Eunuchswear]

Afghanistan is scaling up when we should be getting out. The Taliban is more or less broken

Hahahaha ...

You do know that the US has been negotiating with the Taliban ?

It isn't the Taliban who are more or less broken.

Re:About time, but...

[RazzleFrog]

Ok. AC with nothing to add to the discussion calling me names. Now that is neither amazing nor surprising. At least you said "you are" and not "your" like most inferior people like yourself. I wonder how many previews it took you to do that, though.

Re:About time, but...

[RazzleFrog]

His post was a non-sequitur. He said, based on his friend going to Afghanistran, he doesn't believe that the war in Iraq is ending. It only sounds like it makes sense because they are in the same region and started around the same time but that's all they have in common.

Re:About time, but...

[shaitand]

"Well honestly based on your comment I didn't know if you really DID realize that they were two unrelated wars."

I think it is safe to assume that literally every random asshat you speak to on the subject for the rest of your life understands this. Possible exceptions wearing checkered shirts with propellers on their hats.

Re:About time, but...

[shaitand]

What we should have done 30+ years ago is what we should do today. NOTHING. We should have left the damn Russians alone. We should apply the same policy to anyone else who isn't bombing our harbors or allied to someone doing the same.

Good

[wwest4]

Let's welcome them home from this situation properly -- with pomp and circumstance. To say they deserve at least that much is an understatement. If we can manage to make this happen for the Yankees, then we need to make sure it happens for the troops.

http://www.change.org/petitions/nyc-mayors-office-welcome-home-parade-in-canyon-of-heroes-for-iraq-vets

Re:Good

[RazzleFrog]

I appreciate the sacrifices soldiers make but considering how unpopular and unjustified the war in Iraq was and how much such a parade would be a target for violence and terrorism, as a New Yorker, I vote they move the parade to DC.

Re:Good

[medcalf]

As a resident of the DC area, we'd be happy to.

Re:Good

[bkmoore]

As someone who was there, I think they would rather just come home and get back to a normal life, or as much of one as is possible. This war has been going on for far too long, with far too much pointless killing on both sides. Over a million service members have served there. Many are wounded for life or made the ultimate sacrifice. The 30,000 or so still there do deserve a hand shake and a pat on the back, but that's about all. The real heroes didn't come home. Parades make me want to puke.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

You say these things and to me it is just one more reason to do it. Let them come to the SFBA.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? They aren't heroes stopping some evil invader, they are the evil invaders. I do not respect any soldier in today's military, except those that have come back horrified at what they were made to do and then spoke out against it (and Bradley Manning -- a true hero worthy of celebration). They are fighting a perpetual war to ensure the profits of oil companies the military industrial complex. They are not protecting our country.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. The child murdering sub-human Bush may have given the orders, but the individual soldiers pulled the triggers.

The violence-loving psycopaths GP wants to throw a parade for are the ones responsible for every USAnian being loathed across the world.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't that just be a propaganda effort? Soldiers are coming back and getting replaced all the time. Not to mention, they won't all come back at the same time but streched out over a long time frame (if it's not another "mission accomplished" fraud in the first place). Having a parade for a few dozens that will actually come back at one point in time seems like nothing but political nonsense.

Re:Good

[shaitand]

And they have been paid well.

We have a family friend that has run several national guard tours in iraq (during gulf as well) he takes turns off being a mercenary there. I don't know how much it all added up to with the sign-on and re-enlistment bonuses, the merc pay, and lets not forget the free room, board, and medical all along. But I know it bought him a house and a couple new cars outright.

Witch hunts

[Shivetya]

Simple really, because the guys in power now may not be the guys in power tomorrow and things they have done may not be acceptable later.

Plus accidents do and will happen. If these troops were forced to defend themselves they should not have to do so with the specter of prosecution hanging over their heads. The bad guys aren't beyond using innocents to setup a situation

Re:Witch hunts

[kd5zex]

If these troops were forced to defend themselves they should not have to do so with the specter of prosecution hanging over their heads.

Hmm, you would think USians would be afforded the same courtesy.

Re:Witch hunts

[kd5zex]

*In their own country.

Take that to the bank...

[pr0f3550r]

After a long financial struggle, Obama's bank opened their doors after 4 years of being closed....

Re:Take that to the bank...

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't say he'd instantly teleport everyone home his first day in office. Troop levels in Iraq started dropping fast and have continued to drop the entire time Obama has been there. No one every promised or even suggested we "cut and run". Note also, we're finally dealing with Afghanistan, the source of 9/11 terrorism, which Bush used as an accuse to one up his failed father or whatever unexplained reason he went into Iraq.

Re:Take that to the bank...

[aardwolf64]

He did say he would shut down Gitmo on day one. Guess what? It's still open...

Re:Take that to the bank...

[Bemopolis]

Guess what else? Congress defunded the closing of Gitmo. And while it was expected that Republicans would be their usual demogogical selves, at least it's comforting that we can still count on Congressional Democrats to be as craven as they have been since the whole GWOT bullshit started in the first place.

Re:Take that to the bank...

[Anonymous Coward]

With ZERO, NADA, NO HELP from the Republicans.

Re:Take that to the bank...

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's not day one of shutting Gitmo down yet!

A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes

[Spafticus]

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/718/e901619124c2411380500fc.jpg/

Re:A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man, I wish I had mod points.

Re:A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes

[iceaxe]

OK, that made me laugh. Thanks :)

Re:A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes

[Hatta]

Do you realize that this withdrawal date was determined by the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W Bush in 2008?

The only thing you can say in favor of Obama here is that he was no worse than Bush would have been.

Re:A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes

[Bemopolis]

The only thing you can say in favor of Obama here is that he was no worse than Bush would have been.

Moot point, since Bush's terms were over. Now, if can you say that he was no worse than a hypothetical McCain administration...

Although to be fair, I am fairly certain that McCain also would have withdrawn our troops from Iraq. I'm just not completely sure that his withdrawal would not have been across the border with Iran.

Re:A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Bush couldn't run. McCain had said that we could be in Iraq for 50 years. Just like we are still in Korea watching North Korea. He (and Fox News today) wants us to be in Iraq to watch Iran...

I guess Saddam and Gaddafi found out the hard way you trade oil in dollars...US dollars.

Re:A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah it would of been less fail if we had invaded Iran instead of Iraq it would of changed the entire dynamic of the Middle East and probably of gotten Saddam to fall in line given how much hate Iraq had for Iran at the time. To bad Bush gets N and Q confused all the time.

Shh I be trolling...

Re:A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize that this withdrawal date was determined by the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W Bush in 2008?

The only thing you can say in favor of Obama here is that he was no worse than Bush would have been.

"...signed by George W Bush in 2008"
*Citation Needed

China

[Quila]

China at various times has conquered most of central and Southeast Asia.

It's the Iraquis' decision

[Animats]

It's not up to the US. The current Iraqi government wants US troops out. That's their decision,and they made it. This isn't new news; it's been underway for almost two years.

Re:It's the Iraquis' decision

[Noughmad]

The current Iraqi government wants US troops out.

So did the previous one. Why should they listen to this one?

Re:It's the Iraquis' decision

[jfengel]

Yes and no. The Iraqi government (well, parts of it) would like for some troops to stay. They really enjoy having a free security force.

They were in negotiations with the US to continue it, but terms had to be dictated. The sticking point was a matter of immunity. The Iraqis wanted troops to be subjected to Iraqi laws; currently they are held to the UCMJ (US law). This was the key point in negotiation two weeks ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15208373

They never came to an agreement, so we get the default: all troops out by the end of the year. This was the official announcement that those negotiations had ended.

That is actual news. Until now, there was reason to expect that the troops would be asked to stay for a few more years. Now we know that's not the case.

Re:It's the Iraquis' decision

[Tancred]

Because it's the right thing to do, and costly (in many ways). Same reasons it was wrong to go in in the first place. But I do like the snark. :)

Sacrifice us for himself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is only sacrificing our troops and US interest and safety in order to make himself look good. But then again. Obama, the so called Christian has always truely been pro-islam.

Re:Sacrifice us for himself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a comment straight out of Yahoo news story comments

A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[sl4shd0rk]

Just want to say thanks for having the balls to go into a miserable situation and put your ass on the line for a bunch of people you don't know and then had to stay for reasons very few knew about.

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[bjourne]

If all they wanted was to go into a miserable situation and help people, they could have just spent their time working in a homeless shelter in any of the ghettos in america's largest cities. Nope, these guys and gals went to Iraq because they felt good about holding a gun in their hands and shooting "bad guys." There is nothing honorable about that.

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[kd5zex]

Nope, these guys and gals went to Iraq because they felt good about holding a gun in their hands and shooting "bad guys."

This is probably the case with the "generation" that is packing up, but the original set were more of guys and gals looking for a ride through college on the taxpayers dime, those looking to "see the world", bored with the small town life in the Mid-West, and who got suckered by recruiters.

I had several friends that were on the cusp of being discharged when all this mess started who never thought they would set foot in a combat zone.

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[xer0aim]

As a member of the Armed Forces, this comment honestly offends me. I've been in for 6 years now, already completed 1 deployment and have not at any point felt "good" about holding a gun in my hands shooting "bad" guys. The fact that you even think that shows how ill-informed you truly are. I urge you to take time out of your honorable life and go spend some time with these people that you are so quick to bash.

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[Hatta]

I'd like to say "Fuck you" to the troops. If you had exercised your conscience instead of blind patriotism we could have avoided wasting a trillion dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[cavePrisoner]

I am an American Soldier. I'm from New York, and I enlisted after college. Like most of my buddies, I took a pay cut to serve in the Army. I knew exactly what I was signing up for. My recruiter tried to convince me to pick a safe job, but I knew I belonged in a combat job. My enlistment will run out before I'm scheduled to deploy, but I've decided to voluntarily extend my contract so that I can deploy with my platoon. I don't care about the Afghans or Iraqis. I hope they live long prosperous lives. But if I have to kill people, then that's the way it goes. That isn't what concerns me. I'm going overseas so that I can make sure everybody gets home.

My apologies if my story doesn't fit into your storyline. It is the truth, and you'll find most soldiers defy your expectations. I went to basic training with an enlisted soldier in his 30's who was a doctor and professor of economics. He spoke with a thick accent because he was from Portugal. I don't think he was a citizen. He just wanted to serve the country that took him in as one of its own.

The biggest problem I see with how the public sees soldiers is that everybody wants to speak for us. Nobody wants to listen to what we have to say.

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[halfloaded]

Just want to say thanks for having the balls to go into a miserable situation and put your ass on the line for a bunch of people you don't know and then had to stay for reasons very few knew about.

You're welcome. ~Cheers!

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[pseudofrog]

Your statement tells me that you don't know many actual service members.

Wars are fought because civilians choose to do so. How about a "fuck you" to the voters and Bush administration instead? You really think these wars started because of the troops?

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[Anonymous Coward]

You have nothing to say worth listening to. You are just another murderer and you deserve to hang.

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[Hatta]

These wars were possible because service members refused to use their conscience and not participate. Nobody gets absolved of evil because they were only following orders.

I offer you this excerpt from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience for your Saturday morning reading:

Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys,(5) and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts â" a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments, though it may be

        "Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
          As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
          Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
          O'er the grave where our hero we buried."(6)

[5] The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus,(7) etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away,"(8) but leave that office to his dust at least: â"

        "I am too high-born to be propertied,
          To be a secondary at control,
          Or useful serving-man and instrument
          To any sovereign state throughout the world."(9)

The only true hero of the Iraq war is Ehren Watada.

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[Sollord]

Hmm don't forget 29 Senators and 82 Representatives who were ya know Democrats amd voted against it before they voted for it or what ever BS they spun about there Yes vote. Gotta make sure everyone who needs a Fuck You gets it. Also Hatta go fuck yourself.

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[Anonymous Coward]

If you weren't such a pussy, you'd have actually done something to stop it. I mean, you think service members should have risked prison to take a stand, but what the fuck have you done?

Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them

[kd5zex]

I am an American Civilian. I am from Texas, and I chose not to enlist after high school (which included four years of MCJROTC). Unlike most of my buddies, I worked my tail off and amassed a trivial amount of wealth and now have a young family. I knew exactly what I wanted and what I didn't want, maintaining control of my life was high on the list. I saw directly through the recruiters sales pitches and blatant lies. I produce tangible things that can be bought and sold and my income is derived through contracts between interested parties as opposed to taxation. I care about everyone and dread the day when I am forced to take a human life.

The way I see it, you signed up for a job. Suck it up and do it like the rest of us. Sorry that your pay is crappy, you have to live in bad conditions and get shot at, but like you said; you knew that going into the deal. I care about you doing your job probably about as much as you care about me doing mine. Your story about the enlisted Portuguese doctor is heart warming but likely a rare case.

I have friends and family in the armed forces and have come across many stand up people from the armed forces in my travels. I have absolutely nothing against people of any professions or walks of life. In fact, we could probably have a chat over a few beers and have a great time.

It's not that people don't want listen, it's that many have grown weary of hearing about your tribulations and it being implied that somehow you are more important than "us". Like it or not, you are just another cog in the machine.

Yep, this isn't new

[Quila]

We have a part of a cemetery in France holding the bodies of US soldiers we executed during WWII for breaking the rules, mostly rape and murder.

Great news!

[Peter Simpson]

Now, let's get them home from Afghanistan, too. As much as I'd like to see the Afghan people have a safe and stable democracy, 10 years is too long and too many Americans have died. We seem to be having better luck with drones and missiles. Bring *all* the troops home now!

Re:Great news!

[Jeng]

I think the quickest way for us to get our troops home from Afghanistan would be to kill every single person in the country. I'm sure that a systematic extermination of everyone in the country would not take nearly as long as just trying to kill the bad guys. If we don't care whom we kill I am sure we can get out of there in around one year.

Re:Great news!

[sjames]

Agreed. I'm not fond of the Taliban taking over everything there, but an occupying army cannot effect the cultural changes needed to keep them out. The best we can do is assist anyone who wants to leave.

Re:Great news!

[geekoid]

10 years, but the first 7 they weren't given any real direction why excuses where made to go into Iraq.

We cant just bring them home now. It would leave a vacuum similar to the one during Reagan's presidency. That is the cause of this in the first place. We have to have a stable government, and then move out.

Re:Great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, and yet...

The last 3 years there has been a serious committment from the western forces. The Afghani government doesn't look a whole lot stronger now than 3 years ago. The society doesn't look much different (yes, lots more kids in school esp. girls, but watch all this blow away once we leave).

The Islamic cultural forces that produce extremists are still going strong. They have endless capacity to justify their existence (in Iraq & Pakistan their message has changed from 'we have to get rid of all the infidel foreigners' to 'we have to get rid of all the bad Muslims').

How long do we continue to invest in this situation? How long do we remain a punching bag for a fractured society? If Afghans are not willing/able to enter the modern world, then it may be best to let them revert to their tribal past. It's a feudal system but it's their own, they cannot claim some outsider tried to impose it on them, and it is undeniably stable and long-lasting.

However that may well mean that only Kabul has anything resembling a government.

Mr.?

[rotide]

I don't particularly have a lot of love for the President, but why do they continually call him "Mr. Obama"? If they can't respect the man, that's fine, but at least respect the office. Hopefully I'm not being overly pedantic...

Re:Mr.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why respect the office? He's just a man with a job.

What has he done to earn any respect?

And I don't mean that with disrespect, but what has he done to earn my respect more than anybody else with any other job? He hasn't gone above and beyond any expectations, and many would argue (with varying degrees of literacy and grammar) that he has failed in several aspects.

Re:Mr.?

[oodaloop]

"Mr." is the appropriate title for addressing the President of the United States. It seems to me that even this humble title is missing many times when journalists refer to his predecessor. I seem to see "Bush" a lot more than "Mr. Bush" in news articles, while "Mr. Obama" or even "President Obama" seems more common than just "Obama."

Re:Mr.?

[b0bby]

It's traditional to use the form "President Obama" for the first mention in an article, and "Mr. Obama" (or Bush, or Clinton) after that. I think it's to emphasize that it's not a title like King or Queen.

Re:Mr.?

[rotide]

Interesting, ok. My mistake. It just looked really odd after a while with all the "Mr. Obama"'s in that article.

Re:Mr.?

[Dragonslicer]

So here's a question. What if the president has a Ph. D.? And I don't mean an honorary, but one that they actually earned. I know some of them can be touchy about being called "Mister" instead of "Doctor".

Re:Mr.?

[Anonymous Coward]

House style for courtesy titles. From my (admittedly aged) copy of The New York Times Manual of Style:

"courtesy titles. Use Mr., Mrs., Miss or Ms. with surnames in the news columns for second and later references to people who do not bear specialized titles, like Dr., Gen. or Gov. Exceptions are few and are set out in this entry.

First name, middle initial (if any) and surname normally appear on first reference, without a courtesy title. For a woman, later references are to Ms. Milori, unless the woman asks to be known as Miss or Mrs.; the choice is hers, and reporters should seek her preference. In an exceptional case, typically on the society pages, a woman may wish to be known by her husband's name: Mrs. Morgan H. Berenich, and then Mrs. Berenich.

In general, government officials may be Dr., Mr., Mrs., Miss or Ms. after being introduced by their main titles: Gov. Toby K. Lamm; Governor Lamm; Ms. Lamm. But judges and uniformed personnel (military, police, fire) keep specialized titles in all references."

It goes on for another page or so, but those are the relevant points. The "president" entry reads:

"It is President Lamm (without a given name) in a first reference to the current president of the United States. In later references: President Lamm; the president; Mr. (or Ms. or Miss or Mrs.) Lamm. In first references to presidents of other countries, use given names and ordinarily middle initials. For other presidents — of companies, associations, clubs, universities and organizations — lowercase the title and separate it from the name (before or after) with a comma."

-Your unfriendly neighborhood editor

Re:Mr.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditionally in articles, newscasts etc, reporters have called the president "President Obama" one time , then on subsequent references, call him "Mr. Obama". If you read the whole article, you'll see that they do the same here. This is the way they have done it in all the recent history I can recall.

However, I have noticed that liberals (not necessarily you) in general have gotten much more sensitive about this issue lately. I guess after calling President Bush some of the worst names in recent history, they suddenly get very offended when Pres. Obama is referred to as Mr. Obama.

Re:Mr.?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no disrespect. Have you never heard the reporters yelling "Mr. President, Mr. President" when trying to ask questions? That is the proper title by which he's addressed - we deliberately opted out of "his eminence," "his majesty," "his excellency," etc. in this country.

Re:Mr.?

[grandrollerz]

I heard NPR explain this once. Apparently, it is common practice to use the formal President Obama in the first reference of his name, and subsequently to refer to him as Mr. Obama. This is the case with all presidents at least according to NPRs policy. http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2009/01/mr_obama_mormons_and_susan_sta_1.html

We're heard this before...

[damn_registrars]

I seem to recall one way that our beloved leaders have gotten around it is by sending in more "peace-keeping", "training", or "support" forces instead. And of course our dear friends from Blackwater as contractors can be there forever shooting up the place without being counted as troops.

In other words we probably won't see any meaningful change from this, just as we haven't seen any meaningful change from anything else that has actually been done by Obama since taking office.

Go ahead, mod me down now. But I dare you to try to prove me wrong.

Re:We're heard this before...

[geekoid]

how do you 'prove you wrong' when you just make a bunch of shit up?

There are invisible pink horse on the moon. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.

Re:We're heard this before...

[stms]

Come on this is only the third time (that I can remember) that Obama has "withdrawn us from Iraq" he can probably still get 2-3 more favorable news stories out of this before people actually realize that now we're in a war with (at least) 2 countries.

Re:We're heard this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

You were proven wrong just by the quote in the summary. They were going to leave "training" forces, but now they aren't even going to do that due to the legal issues.

Re:We're heard this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's done a thing or two

Re:We're heard this before...

[Chris Burke]

There are invisible pink horse on the moon. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong.

The invisible lions on the moon ate all the invisible pink horses long ago.

Re:We're heard this before...

[Kaenneth]

How can something be both Invisible, AND Pink?

Re:We're heard this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

Blackwater isn't working for us anymore, they went rogue after we attempted to imprison their leadership for crimes against humanity. They're all down in Africa now working for whoever pays the most, fighting with / against warlords mostly.

Re:We're heard this before...

[damn_registrars]

how do you 'prove you wrong' when you just make a bunch of shit up?

You could try to prove me wrong by disproving any of the statements I just made. But apparently such a challenge is too much for you, so you opt for sarcasm and nonsense instead. If you disagree with what I said, or you feel it is not factual, then it should be easy for you to disprove it.

But when you instead insist that all is did was

make a bunch of shit up

Then you are indicating you don't actually want to have a discussion.

Re:We're heard this before...

[damn_registrars]

He's done a thing or two

If you are trying to show that Obama has done something that in some way represents a diversion from the existing trajectory towards an ever-more-conservative and corporate-married government, you failed miserably. Everything he has done so far is directly in line with what his predecessor was doing.

Every. Last. Thing.

Re:We're heard this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

You did read the part where the support troops werent approved and the trainers were being withdrawn as well? Ah, sorry, I didnt mean to spoil your Obama hate fest, by all means continue to make shit up with no thought at all.

Re:We're heard this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bin Laden is dead. That's change enough for me. Jr, Sr, Slick Willy all couldn't get him. Obama did what all those Presidents should've done: just do the job.

Re:We're heard this before...

[damn_registrars]

Bin Laden is dead. That's change enough for me. Jr, Sr, Slick Willy all couldn't get him. Obama did what all those Presidents should've done: just do the job.

So what? What changed as a result? And did I miss the news headline about Obama personally murdering Bin Laden?

Re:We're heard this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

> So what? What changed as a result?

Bin Laden is no longer able to plan any attacks or proselytize new terrorist recruits.

> And did I miss the news headline about Obama personally murdering Bin Laden?

Obama pulled the trigger. Not literally, but it was his decision. His weapon was a team of special forces instead of a gun, but when he was informed of the risks and the opportunity, Obama alone made the decision to proceed.

He was "the decider" and deserves credit for that.

Re:We're heard this before...

[damn_registrars]

So what? What changed as a result?

Bin Laden is no longer able to plan any attacks or proselytize new terrorist recruits.

So of course that means that as a result terrorism the world over is no more, never to attack anyone, anywhere, ever, right? Sure.

On planet earth, we saw plenty of others in Al-Qaeda vying for power. Their factions are still doing the same things they were doing when he was alive.

The death of Bin Laden meant less to Al-Qaeda than the death of Reagan did to the GOP.

He was "the decider" and deserves credit for that.

So what? We've had special forces and intelligence operatives in Pakistan for decades. He didn't plan the mission, he didn't set up the networks and the surveillance.

Re:We're heard this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll talk in January. Since I have absolutely no influence over the situation, I'm choosing to be optimistic, but am prepared to find out I was lied to again.

Re:We're heard this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

So of course that means that as a result terrorism the world over is no more, never to attack anyone, anywhere, ever, right? Sure.

Nice straw man. Those are easy to hit.

So what? We've had special forces and intelligence operatives in Pakistan for decades. He didn't plan the mission, he didn't set up the networks and the surveillance.

He's the fucking Commander in Chief. If he says attack the compound, they do. If he says stand down, they do. Quit trying to blow off what was a very tough decision in circumstances you can't comprehend.

Re:We're heard this before...

[smash]

Furthermore - killing Osama means that his friends/family/future generations/etc will want revenge. And the whole reason for the "terrorists" wanting to attack the USA hasn't gone away in any case. FIX YOUR FUCKING FOREIGN POLICY and you'll be less of a target. Keep attacking other countries in an attempt to spread the current corrupted version of "democracy" and you'll simply prolong the bullshit. Which is kinda cool for the defence contractors, so perhaps that is actually the real objective.

Re:We're heard this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

it was a mildly socialist horse

Re:We're heard this before...

[Anonymous Coward]

Security contractors fall under Iraqi law now, can be tried in Iraqi courts, and can serve time in Iraqi prisons.

Big Army IS leaving. Talk to anyone currently stationed in Iraq, EVERYTHING is being boxed up and shipped home, the APO system is breaking down, and the logistics streams are dismantling.

Also, Blackwater is no longer operating security solutions in Iraq. Not only did the name of the company change, but leadership did as well, completely restructuring the company and it's contracts.

Have i thoroughly proved you wrong?

Something to think about

[should_be_linear]

How much was this decision influenced by WikiLeaks and bad PR this nonsensical war is bringing to Mr. Obama for next elections?

Re:Something to think about

[geekoid]

Since it's been drawing down since he came into office, I would say it's part of the original plan.

What timing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in time for the run-up to the 2012 election. How convenient.

There are a million normal news sites...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this "news for nerds"?

Re:There are a million normal news sites...

[Jeng]

This site is not really about the news stories, it is about the comments.

You can read about the news on a million different websites, but you can only get the nerds perspective here.

Re:There are a million normal news sites...

[wzinc]

Opportunity to use cool Centurion helmet icon.

Re:There are a million normal news sites...

[afabbro]

You can read about the news on a million different websites, but you can only get the Slashdot groupthink perspective here.

FTFY.

What about WMD?

[Anonymous Coward]

If all US soldiers will go, who will search for WMD? And who will implement democracy in Iraq? I thought you guys attacked Iraq because they had WMD and besides that you wanted democracy for the poor people of Iraq.

Re:What about WMD?

[Noughmad]

If all the US American soldiers will go, who will search for WMD? And who will implement democracy in the Iraq? I thought you guys attacked the Iraq because they had WMD and besides that you wanted democracy for the poor people of the Iraq.

FTFY

Whatever....

[Dripdry]

I don't CARE if MOST of the troops leave...
What seems important to me and I hope many people is what is it COSTING us now and after some more troops leave? if one guy is still there, but 10 military bases are being powered and run, and supplies are still flowing in, it's wasting an already bloated budget.

Re:Whatever....

[geekoid]

The budget isn't bloated. Funny, people see a big budget and assume bloat; but when people really look the seldom find anything. So they cut useful programs.

Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

That means they are coming back to violate posse comitatus by running illegal checkpoints well within US borders. Hooray! Or maybe they are gearing up for an Iran/Syria invasion... ahem I mean humanitarian peace-keeping mission.

If only...

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there was a president, or presidential hopeful that would promise to bring our troops home immediately, cut a trillion dollars, and honor the constitution.

Re:If only...

[Eunuchswear]

Only an idiot would really honour the US constitution. It's a fucking stupid document and the US works despite rather than because of it.

Lesson Learned

[nurb432]

Hold out long enough and America will give up and go home.

Re:Lesson Learned

[xstonedogx]

Hold out long enough and America will give up and send the troops somewhere else.

FTFY

Re:Lesson Learned

[nurb432]

"go home" was just a generalization, how about "get bored and wander off" instead?

Perhaps this is a bit irrelevant but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not Mr. Obama, he is in fact the President of the United States. So, even if you disagree with his policies, personality, or very existence it is still correct to call him President Obama.

after we "leave"...

[Anonymous Coward]

how many bases, personnel, and how many millions of dollars will it cost to maintain our lack of presence? we're still keeping gaurd against those evil germans, koreans, and japanese afterall.

Leave is such a "strong" term...

[hackus]

more like cut back certain types of military activity.

There is no way the troops are leaving though, I can assure you that is not going to happen any time soon.

If anything the major news networks will be instructed to carry less news about the military activities in Iraq, there by making it seem like nothing much is happening over there.

My largest concern, is something I couldn't see now, way back when we initially started getting into the Middle east. But now, if you look at the agenda, and who has gained over the past 15 years of war, it is clear why will _never_ leave.

Iraq is now the base of operations in the middle east for control.

Libya will now be AFRICOM head quarters where the US can launch strikes deep into Africa, because that is what they are going to do next.

It is clear whoever is behind this military action wants, basically 3 things in Africa:

1) GOLD.
2) OIL
3) CONTROL

-Hack

Re:Leave is such a "strong" term...

[Anonymous Coward]

Loosen your tin foil. It appears to be cutting off oxygen to your brain. If you arn't wearing a tinfoil hat.. then you really are an idiot.

Re:Leave is such a "strong" term...

[Anonymous Coward]

They might be OK with pulling back a little. There is a huge naval base in Bahrain and bases in Quatar and the UAE. Saudi is not the whole gulf, and the pay-with-oil idea was never economic.

cause and effect

[Hognoxious]

I doubt that Sweden for example would be the same peaceful loving country if its position were swapped with the United States of America.

I doubt that a peaceful loving [sic] country like Sweden would end up in the same position as the USA, but there you go.

Yeah, right.

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Mr. Obama said that as of Jan. 1, 2012, the United States and Iraq would begin 'a normal relationship between two sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

SSDD in China; Putin still rules in Russia; Obama continues what Bush started.

Sorry, from my (non-US) POV, life still sucks. BTW, when you come home, don't forget those WMDs you went there to find...

Nice but perhaps not so wise.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality of it is, that while it will be nice having my son back for Christmas, doing so greatly increases the probability that he will need to go back sometime in his military career. Had we finished it right the first time, I wouldn't have been there in 2004 and he wouldn't have been there today. What's worse, is each time we go back it just gets nastier and nastier. Next time it isn't going to be a picnic.

Which year?

[Hognoxious]

When the first world war started, in the summer of 1914, everybody thought it would be over by Christmas.

Which was true. November 1918 is before Christmas 1918.

Titles

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder when it became a sign of respect to use Mr. instead of Pres? It seems the last two presidents have suffered this ignorance of proper address. Too bad for the failing media and our educated citizens.

Ah, and here is the gotcha

[p4nther2004]

those "peace-keeping", "training", "support" forces (ie: Blackwater/Xe contractors) won't be counted as troops...

But they WILL be subject to that countries laws.

Such is the life of a Merc. Want the glorious pay?

Re:Ah, and here is the gotcha

[damn_registrars]

those "peace-keeping", "training", "support" forces (ie: Blackwater/Xe contractors) won't be counted as troops...

My point exactly.

But they WILL be subject to that countries laws.

We already showed that our mercenaries can act without consequence; we pulled out some blackwater guys who were suspected of murder and they never faced anything.

Only day one

[deathtopaulw]

and it's turning out to be one hell of a blizzcon this year!

Mission Accomplished

[uvajed_ekil]

Let me be the first to declare, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Got Saddam, got bin Laden (basically the same guy right?), ended the Iraq war.

Wait... somebody beat me to it? By HOW many years?

No.

[MRe_nl]

If all the American soldiers leave, who will search for the WMDs? And who will implement democracy in the Iraq? I thought you guys attacked Iraq because they had WMDs and besides that you wanted democracy for the poor people of Iraq.

Re:No.

[Noughmad]

Whoosh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII

Re:No.

[MRe_nl]

OK, thanks, I have to curl up in a corner and cry myself to sleep now.

Re:No.

[Noughmad]

You don't have to, unless you're from South Carolina yourself.

This date was set in 2008 and not by Obama

[brainchill]

It bothers me that all of the "announcements" that I am reading make this look like a decision made for the good of the country by the Obama administration. This is just not the case. As much as I am not a GWB fan the truth of the matter is that the Dec 31 2011 date for removing combat troops from Iraq was set by a a strategic framework and security agreement between the Bush administration white house and the Iraqi's in November of 2008. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081127-2.html Pentagon officials under the Obama administration have actually been trying to get the Iraqi's to extend this date since may/june of last year but they (Iraqi government) will not ALLOW us to stay any longer in combat capacity.

Re:This date was set in 2008 and not by Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good to know, thank you. This is the kind of thing that bugs the crap out of me about the media here in the US. Unless you move away from the mainstream sources you don't hear stuff like this.

Re:This date was set in 2008 and not by Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush can't set policy since he is not President. This is an Obama Administration decision.

Re:This date was set in 2008 and not by Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent research. I find it too much of a coincidence this to be happening in an election year.

The exit path...

[Culture20]

The exit path is through Iran. This comes too quickly after the recent all-Senate closed door hearings (after the Iranian-Drug cartel Saudi murder plot). Ever since we hit Iraq, I've been saying that the long term executive goal was to pressure Iran from both sides (or wait for them to do something stupid).

Fool me twice, shame on...?

[J'raxis]

Uh huh. In other words, it's campaign season and promising to end the war in Iraq got him elected, so maybe he can fool everyone again four years later with the exact same claim.

Unilateral withdrawal

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States, paying, and thus controlling the troops, could have withdrawn whenever they chose to. Obama could have ordered a withdrawal on Feb 2009. So what if the Iraqis object.

Re:Unilateral withdrawal

[brainchill]

The agreement did not say that we couldn't withdraw any time that we want .... just that we could only stay so long .... the agreement says we cannot stay beyond dec 31 2011 in a combat roll without their expressed permission ... which our president has been asking for for 6 months.

He is preparing in case he has to debate Ron Paul

[roman_mir]

Obama is in his reelection mode now, expect all sorts of 'tough stands' and 'right' soundbites and all sorts of promises.

I mean if Ron Paul gets the nomination, all he has to do to put Obama on his knees is just show how this Nobel prize winner in 'peace' has started another few unconstitutional wars and murdered US citizens without due process.

Of-course Ron Paul can also point out how he predicted the economic problems and because he predicted them, he understands the cause of them, which makes him the best person to run the place, especially in this economic situation.

This is just propaganda.

Bush's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same time table Bush worked out with the Iraq gov't before leaving office. If it actually happens, it's Bush's fault.

If it doesn't happen, it's on Obama.

Hooray!

[tompaulco]

Hooray! Now the can stop hating us for interfering in their country and begin hating us for leaving them hanging. Just like we did in Afghanistan, which pissed off Osama Bin Ladin enough for him to declare a Jihad against us.

Re:Hooray!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, they will always hate us for a pretty simple reason - we are Infidels, while they are the best of peoples and the followers of allah.

Re:Hooray!

[Anonymous Coward]

begin hating us for leaving them hanging

Oh don't worry. I'm sure the number of private mercenaries and unmanned drones will rise sharply. After all, they're not soldiers.

I'm sure Xe Services (rebranded Blackwater) and other murder-is-our-business corporations are already partying. Sounds like a great opportunity to repay some political favours in the form of private military contracts.

Not exactly immune...

[RobinEggs]

Don't forget that military law is very strictly followed and absolutely vicious in its penalties. There are numerous instances in which crimes are silenced or covered up at the unit level, but once the wheels get rolling the JAG will cremate your ass. A friend of mine was killed downtown by a soldier driving drunk. Because he was off-duty and off-base at the time he was tried in civilian court, resulting in a two year sentence and a dishonorable discharge. I was told he could easily have gotten life in the stockade if it had happened on-base and he'd thus been tried by an advocate.

I don't really appreciate it when people conflate the cover ups and obstructionist solidarity that occurs between enlisted men with lax discipline and global, willful ignorance of criminal behavior throughout the command. Not being prosecuting because your sergeant helped you cover it up is one thing, and common enough, but officers rarely tolerate such a cover up when they find out, and in cases actually prosecuted military justice is usually too harsh, not too lax.

Re:Not exactly immune...

[Anonymous Coward]

but officers rarely tolerate such a cover up when they find out, and in cases actually prosecuted military justice is usually too harsh, not too lax

See the reply to RobinEggs

I don't think you understand...

[RobinEggs]

If you're saying it's more transparent and more satisfying to the parent to see them tried locally then I suppose that's possible. But if you're arguing that military sentences are lax then you'd be dead wrong. "Unspecified disciplinary action" sounds like you believe it will all be swept under the rug, but if the solider has actually been turned over to the provost marshal and shipped home his life is over. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not fuck around, and soldiers don't get off easily.

It's a problem with our military, and with any military operating abroad, for crimes off-base to be covered up within platoons or reported by the foreign national to a service member who, whether acting honorably or not, doesn't correctly refer it to the military police. But even implying that the official procedure doesn't sufficiently investigate and punish the crimes of service members is dead wrong. In many cases the punishment is far more than people would receive in civilian courts, either American or those of the host country, and it's almost never less.

Re:I don't think you understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some years ago, a US sailor on shore leave in Vancouver (Victoria?) Canada was accused of rape. The police thought there was enough evidence to arrest him. The crown attorney thought there was enough evidence to bring charges.

The sailor fled to his ship. The captain refused to turn him over to Canadian authorities and ordered the ship to sail shortly afterward.

To the best of my knowledge, the US Navy did no investigation, and the sailor received no punishment whatsoever from either US Naval or civil authorities. The Canadian authorities worked for years to have the sailor extradited. AFAIK they were never successful.

One anecdote may not be data, but you made a universal statement, so one counter-example is sufficient to prove your statement wrong.

Re:I don't think you understand...

[RobinEggs]

One anecdote may not be data, but you made a universal statement, so one counter-example is sufficient to prove your statement wrong.

You didn't even read my statement if you think you proved it wrong. I said that military sentences are not lax, and that cases in which the military police remove the soldier and ship him home don't result in simply hiding the guy or letting him off scot free. I never said the US military does or must agree with the opinion of other nation's law enforcement, nor did I say that a combat officer such as a navy captain would never mishandle an accusation, nor did I say that the military would voluntarily assist in extraditing a soldier. Your anecdote is so vague it's almost not worth responding to; for all you know the JAG spent weeks on the case and decided there was really nothing to it.

I said that the military takes their prosecutions very seriously, not that they prosecute or extradite soldiers in every single case. You haven't disproved anything.

Re:I don't think you understand...

[martin-boundary]

If you're saying it's more transparent and more satisfying to the parent to see them tried locally then I suppose that's possible. [I'm not saying the other thing]

It's not just more satisfying, it's the only correct thing to do, because the social contract goes both ways. It's easier to visualize if the situation is reversed. Say you have an American parent and the crime is committed in America by some foreign troops that might be stationed in America.

Now, the social contract implies that Americans are bound by local (American) laws. But the justification for those laws is not just that they are imposed on the American people by the government. It goes the other way too. The laws are there to serve the American people and facilitate a particular (American) way of living. They can be changed and adapted (in principle) to anything if the American people choose it, eg you could have a revolution and a burning of the constitution etc.

It's kind of like wearing a coat to protect against the weather, the laws are protection against anarchy and barbarism. And just like there are many kinds of coats and you choose to wear the one you like, the American laws are a choice of the American people, but there are many different kinds of laws elsewhere.

Now back to my point. The parent expects American laws to apply because that's part of the social contract of his community. He chooses to live in it just as it is. So when the foreign soldier is sent home to face trial and punishment, that's a failure of the American community to apply the laws it chose for itself. The only correct thing to do is to try him 1) in America and 2) under American laws.

In particular (if you accept my argument above), it's irrelevant to compare the severity of the punishments. Whether the foreign soldier faces tougher penalties back home or in America doesn't matter - what matters is if the social contract between the parent and American law is broken by skipping the local prosecution of the foreign soldier under American laws.

Re:I don't think you understand...

[MaskedSlacker]

One anecdote may not be data, but you made a universal statement, so one counter-example is sufficient to prove your statement wrong.

Sure, you disproved that strawman quite nicely.

All your parent said was that WHEN the military police arrest someone on charges, that person is about to get royally fucked. He said nothing about how consistently they do so. WHEN soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen are prosecuted, their lives are destroyed.

Your post is an exercise in meaningless non-sequitur. You cite a case where a sailor may, or may not, have been prosecuted by the Navy for a rape (you admit you don't actually know), and may, or may not, have been extradited back to Canada for prosecution (you admit you don't actually know). To reduce your post to more sensible language:

A sailor was suspected of rape. You have no idea whether he was ever prosecuted. He may, or may not, have been. This proves your parent's claim that when someone is prosecuted by the JAG office it means their life is effectively over to be false.

To reduce my post to more sensible language: What are you on, and can I have some?

NYT writing style?

[KingAlanI]

TFA is from the New York Times; the NYT seems to have a habit of using this kind of phrasing for many public figures.

It's the ideology, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It's not the woman's fault, in the sense that she *can* do better. The problem lies with the ideology and the ideas that keep her in that situation, the lack of "disruptive" ideas to get her out. The same applies to the middle east, the culture and religion is very well suited to amplify and worsen the situation and place control in a singular organization.

The problem is the culture and ideas, and *especially* the suppression of ideas that might disrupt it. The problem is the customs & religion of the middle east driving people towards dependance, and forcing abusive relationships by creating "responsabilities" : making families and groups responsible for the actions of runaway members. Just 3 weeks ago, there was a report of a family getting massacred in Palestine because one of their sons, which they hadn't seen in 6 years, had stolen something in a neighboring town. The issue was probably that he stole something big from a political family, and the fact that he got away.

The same thing happens all over the middle east, and their intolerance of even slightly different ideas is legendary. The problem ... the problem is islam, or at the very least the current form it takes in the middle east.

But some of the problems, like the blatant directive to kill apostates, are at the heart of the problem, and they're at the heart of islam (let's stop making excuses for this cruel fucked up beyond belief religion, shall we ?). They are a large part of the problem.

Although, it's also partly the case that it's simply impossible to survive in the middle east, due to the deserts, outside of very large, very tightly packed population centers, although that part is actually improving.

Cynics say Democracy must originate organically

[retroworks]

Tell it to Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, etc. It's easy to be cynical, but it looks to me like the Neo-cons are well on the way to creating an anchor democracy in the mideast and the dictatorships surrounding it are crumbling. Reading the same cynical one-liner subjects as nine years ago... looks like 1954.

The Illegal War Come to an End

[Anonymous Coward]

What a quagmire!

An illegal war!

Hundred of thousand of Iraqi citizens murdered.

Bases set up by the US military ... aka Department of Defense and Executive Office.

US citizens ... rendered ... tourtered ... murdered ... and the blood lust of the President Bush and Obama have no limit.

Historians will argue and debate.

Why did President Obama not call on a stratigic nuclear strike on Moscow, Paris and Beging?

Obama cares not a rat's ass for 6 billion dead. So why the lack of nerve over a measly 2 billion dead?

No Balls on Obama's part I'd say.

George [Johneey] Walker Bush haded Obama a treasure! Obama ... fucked up royally!

Likely ... this entire century will wonder and ponder the plight of the decline of USA Law and Leadership.

No doubt. The USA Leagal System is in shambles ... worthless ... a hollow corps.

Likely ... the USA will suffer the same fate as Spain ... after the Enquixition.

Better to be leaving the USA ... rather than ... arriving.

Travel light

++

Re:The Illegal War Come to an End

[Anonymous Coward]

Which foreign government agency wrote this? Hmm.

'troops'

[anonieuweling]

Troops may leave, yes.
But the rest remains.
Do you think Obomba will leave the oil alone?
USA 'Foreign policy' is a chain of fake stuff that provokes severe retaliation; even after decades they don't get it.
Fluoride?

Re:'troops'

[Sollord]

What Oil? The vast majority of the OIl contract are going to non-US firms...

Permanent leave

[luk3Z]

They are leaving every year (to the infinity).

When do US contractors leave?

[Anonymous Coward]

The profiteers are the second and even more dangerous wave in this wonderful disaster capitalism we live in...

And when does the US installed sock puppet government leave?

Bull

[xmorg]

Crap.

Immunity from prosecution = freedom to rape and

[lsatenstein]

One could give immunity from soldiering such a self defence, but not from theft, rape, or other violent crimes.

Libya

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume this has nothing to do with the new found US ally in the form of the new Libyan government, together with the fact that Libya also has oil supplies, is closer to US than Iraq, and public opinion there (to say this mildly) seems to be in favor of the "liberators" from Gaddafi?

All About Immunity

[Anonymous Coward]

A few weeks after arriving at the US Executive Office, aka White House, Mr. Barak Obama set about writing some executive orders.

Among these was a now not so secret executive order wherein Mr. Obama granted himself immunity of all US laws, all US states and local laws and all International laws and treaties. In keep with tradition, Mr. Obama presumes immunity from ethics and morality based on his grant to himself.

Mr. Obama inherited the illegal wars in Afganestan and Iraq. Mr. Obama wanted to extend his grant of immunity he gave himself to all those others doing work on his behalf, namely the USA Dept. of Defense and Intelligence Agencies, namely Central Intelligence and the Dept. of State, and including all commissioned, noncommissioned and conscripted troops.

Rightly so, the Government of Iraq, however illegally installed and the beneficiary of the illegal actions of frm President Bush and associates, could not in right mind grant such an outrageous request, nore could any other government on Earth do so, in their right mind, so the speak.

Thus, the troops are slated to come home by December 31, 2011, and Mr. Obama now claims to have fulfilled his promise to the US electorate.

Therefore, Mr. Obama's claim of satisfing a promise to the US electorate is false given the facts. The product of a dangerous mind indeed.

Defenders of home and country are not criminals

[fyngyrz]

Why should people who were defending a country that was invaded be vilified for defending that country? If Cuba rolled into the USA, perhaps bombing your home in the process, would you stand by and let them do whatever they liked to you and yours just because you're not wearing a uniform? Because if that's the case, you're a worthless human being.

We had exactly *one* justification subsequent to 9/11; that would have been to address Saudi Arabia in some fashion, where 15 of the 9/11 cultist fanatics came from, where the funding came from, and where the cult that supplied the initial and supporting ideology -- and which the country is based upon -- makes its state-supported home. Those issues combine to make 9/11 the directly obvious (blatantly obvious, in fact) responsibility of the Saudi Arabian nation.

But we didn't respond properly. Instead, we attacked Iraq for entirely fabricated reasons, and Afghanistan using reasoning that is the approximate equal of attacking England because an enemy's officer was educated at the War Studies Department of King's College London.

In the end, we have addressed neither the root of the problem -- which is the cult of Islam -- or the specifics -- which is the wealthy Saudi Arabian state promoting and funding the utterly reprehensible actions of that very cult.

And in the meantime, those people currently in Guantanamo... they can be, as described above, either criminals (and therefore should be on a fast track to a courtroom) or prisoners of war. There is no other valid reason for holding them, and each of those possibilities comes with a well defined understanding and rules of how they should be treated on a day to day basis. And before anyone screeches "terrorist", terrorism is a crime, end of story.

Not to mention the damage we have done to our own system by inflicting various cripplings on our liberties and freedoms, expending huge amounts of treasure for no useful result, and deceiving our own citizens.

It's been like watching idiots and children trying to solve a problem that is completely beyond them. Or congress. But I repeat myself.

Re:Defenders of home and country are not criminals

[Culture20]

But we didn't respond properly. Instead, we attacked Iraq for entirely fabricated reasons, and Afghanistan using reasoning that is the approximate equal of attacking England because an enemy's officer was educated at the War Studies Department of King's College London.

Not only do you have your facts wrong, but your have them out of chronological order. The US led coalition attacked Afghanistan because the Taliban was not only harboring the leaders of the terrorist group responsible, they were providing locations for training. A bonus side effect is that the people of Afghanistan hated the Taliban rule and wanted them ousted. Another US led coalition attacked Iraq because Saddam Hussein was stupid enough to bluff and bluster like he had WMD. Saddam pulled the national equivalent of "Suicide by cop" (pretending to pull a nonexistent weapon while an officer has his gun trained on you), thinking he was all cool-like-that up against the UN and "The Great Satan". A bonus side effect is that a lot of people in Iraq hated Saddam and wanted him ousted.

Now, sure, a lot of people in Saudi Arabia hate the King and want him ousted, but there's not enough of a reason there for the US to attack there.

those people currently in Guantanamo... they can be, as described above, either criminals (and therefore should be on a fast track to a courtroom) or prisoners of war.

They can't be both? Terrorist criminals working as enemy combatants in a war-zone? Thus, POWs until the "War on Terror" is over, then they might get criminal charges levied.

Re:Defenders of home and country are not criminals

[fyngyrz]

You've been misled. The US attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan so the public would think they were doing something worthwhile (they weren't) while pumping the military industrial complex and not threatening our oil supply. You also don't understand that schools are not the proper attack vector when members of the student body get out of hand; that distinction belongs to the employer of the student, unless the students were acting on their own -- which is not the case here. The Saudis were the employers.

As for the prisoners in Guantanamo, most are simply guilty of defending their homes. And again, you completely ignore this fact. Hysteria is all you have behind your argument. They are no more "guilty" than you would be if you shot at a bunch of invading Cuban troops who were attacking your home in Florida.

Responsibility here lies with the cult of Islam; and with the sponsors of the cult. Until or unless the cult is dealt with, this problem will in no way be ameliorated.

Our leaders know this; but they aren't interested in solving the problem, as it is a direct means to accrue power here through erosion of citizen's rights and freedoms, and a highly effective way to funnel very large amounts of funds through the military industrial complex.

Perfectly Timed Political Maneuver.

[ltlasset]

When Obama was elected I remember so many people talking about how soon we were going to be out of these wars. I for one thought the sooner the better, but I took a more pragmatic approach. I always thought Obama would be the partisan figurehead he has turned out to be, and would wait to do anything meaningful in an attempt to win re-election. Now he finally gets around to withdrawing troops, towards the end of his first term, when it serves him best politically. I am really appreciating that change we got, he definitely breaks the mold of a politician!

Oh ... the US State Dept. Pray Tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems that there will be more than 16,000 US State Department Diplomats inside Iraq!

15,000 ... a force of a US Military Division. Well ... wonders do amaze in these Obama Times.

The Thingy is that these thugs will have "Diplomatic Immunity" i.e. Immunity from local and Iraq national and International Laws.

Or so presumes the premis of "Diplomatic Immunity".

Ergo

Why should Iraq grant diplomatic immunity toi any human presuming US State Department Employment or US Citizenship?

Good question.

++

Hitler's Final Final Solution Good for Obama-Kun

[Anonymous Coward]

Suicide.

I'll believe it when...

[twoHats]

I will believe the troops are coming home from Iraq when the troops come home from Germany! When they stop constructing billion dollar bases in Iraq. When Israel stops using oil that they don't have. When the US protects the Kurdish people as promised. In general, when the USA stops behaving as bullies and thugs. When citizenship is stripped from the same corporations who depleted the US treasury to their own benefit. When the US rebuilds Iraq as promised. When we sop killing our own people without trial or charge. etc etc etc