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."
Unmanned drones are not soldiers (Score:3, Interesting)
They are machines, and they carry weapons, No soldiers present.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Richard Pryor was hilarious in that movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Those detainees have to go somewhere
How about a courtroom?
Re: (Score:3)
"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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I also hear that it will not stop.
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
You must not have been paying attention to the campaign much... like watching one of the debates [youtube.com]... or him in the Senate [youtube.com] where he proposed a bill that would have had all troops out by March 31st, 2008.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When.? when else did he say that?
Re: (Score:3)
When.? when else did he say that?
'He'? That's not what the GP said, but I guess Eisenhower would suffice.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
The New Math? (Score:2)
Regarding the summary:
When I learned arithmetic, 3 to 5 thousand remaining was not "all".
Same old mind fade: (Score:2)
My bad. I misread the article.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Unless... (Score:2)
About time, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 actual
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Good (Score:3)
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 [change.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take that to the bank... (Score:3)
A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
OK, that made me laugh. Thanks :)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
It's the Iraquis' decision (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 [bbc.co.uk]
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.
A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them (Score:3)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:
Great news! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Mr.? (Score:3)
We're heard this before... (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Something to think about (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Since it's been drawing down since he came into office, I would say it's part of the original plan.
Which year? (Score:3)
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.
This date was set in 2008 and not by Obama (Score:4, Informative)
Hooray! (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re:Immunity (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Not exactly immune... (Score:3)
Re: (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.
Witch hunts (Score:3)
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: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.
Yep, this isn't new (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
But nice try, troll.
Re:US. vs China (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
1933, Ger. 4% /GDP, Eng. 2.5% (approx.), both rising sharply the entire decade.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/eloranta.military [eh.net]
http://eh.net/files/graphics/encyclopedia/eloantra004.gif [eh.net]
http://eh.net/files/graphics/encyclopedia/eloantra005.gif [eh.net]
Re: (Score:3)
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 o
China (Score:3)
China at various times has conquered most of central and Southeast Asia.
Re:US. vs China (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well, that's a clever tactic. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
>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: (Score:3)
Yeah, god knows they might convict someone.
Re: (Score:2)
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 y
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re:There are a million normal news sites... (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.