Slashdot Mirror
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."
They are machines, and they carry weapons, No soldiers present.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
This is NOT the first time an administration has said that.
Until it actually happens, I won't believe them.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
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.
China, for varied definitions of "china". Though it's not exactly a fair comparison.
But nice try, troll.
Since 1776 or since 3000 BC?
The CB App. What's your 20?
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.
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.
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
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.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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/
giggity
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
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
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
After a long financial struggle, Obama's bank opened their doors after 4 years of being closed....
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/718/e901619124c2411380500fc.jpg/
>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.
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.
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.
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.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
China at various times has conquered most of central and Southeast Asia.
Yeah, god knows they might convict someone.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
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...
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
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.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Since it's been drawing down since he came into office, I would say it's part of the original plan.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Opportunity to use cool Centurion helmet icon.
You're right, why even bother?
I guess "no hope" > "some hope" in your world.
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".
More Twoson than Cupertino
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
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
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.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
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?
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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
Actually, per capita deaths by war were far less in the past ten years than in quite possibly all of recorded history.