US Troops To Leave Iraq By End of Year 386
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."
You know.. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is NOT the first time an administration has said that.
Until it actually happens, I won't believe them.
Re:Immunity (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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:US. vs China (Score:1, Insightful)
Which country has freed more countries? US or China?
Re:Pax Romana (Score:5, Insightful)
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:US. vs China (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Immunity (Score:1, Insightful)
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:US. vs China (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Immunity (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
There are a million normal news sites... (Score:0, Insightful)
How is this "news for nerds"?
Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (Score:4, Insightful)
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:You know.. (Score:2, Insightful)
When.? when else did he say that?
Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (Score:3, Insightful)
Leave is such a "strong" term... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (Score:5, Insightful)
Those detainees have to go somewhere
How about a courtroom?
Re:US. vs China (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Re:A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them (Score:4, Insightful)
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.