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."
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.
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
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
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.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/718/e901619124c2411380500fc.jpg/
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
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.
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.
But how the hell could you possibly need 17,000 of them? That's either serious government bloat or... yup, lies.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
Those detainees have to go somewhere
How about a courtroom?
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
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.
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"
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.
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.