Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 07, 2010, 06:06:31 PM
-
Didn't the president say we are leaving Iraq? ???
25th Infantry Division HQ to deploy to Iraq late this year
Advertiser Staff
The Department of Defense has notified Headquarters 25th Infantry Division that it will deploy to Iraq as part of the next force rotation, the Army Pacific Public Affairs Office said today.
Approximately 800 soldiers from Tropic Lightning' division headquarters at Schofield Barracks will replace a redeploying unit.
The deployment will take place sometime at the end of the year and will last for a year.
The deployed headquarters will provide command and control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in support of security operations.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100507/BREAKING01/100507025/25th+Infantry+Division+HQ+to+deploy+to+Iraq+late+this+year
-
Didn't the president say we are leaving Iraq? ???
LOL @ believing a black man when he makes a promise. ;D
Didn't he say he wasn't going to raise taxes?
-
LOL @ believing a black man when he makes a promise. ;D
Didn't he say he wasn't going to raise taxes?
Except he's white. :)
Yes he lied about not raising taxes.
I'm trying to understand this deployment when we're supposed to be leaving (according to Obama).
-
Except he's white. :)
Yes he lied about not raising taxes.
I'm trying to understand this deployment when we're supposed to be leaving (according to Obama).
Only when it's convenient to blame whitey. ;)
He lied, what's to understand?
-
Only when it's convenient to blame whitey. ;)
He lied, what's to understand?
I don't know. I know he lied about taxes, because I think he had every intention of raising taxes when he took office. But this? I'm not sure if the mission has changed? The timetable?
Maybe HH6 knows?
-
Except he's white. :)
Yes he lied about not raising taxes.
I'm trying to understand this deployment when we're supposed to be leaving (according to Obama).
Soldier/Units/HQ's are still over there and deployed. So, they still need to be rotated from Iraq to the U.S. and back. The soldiers there just won't stay there indefinitely until we "leave".
It's normal.
-
Soldier/Units/HQ's are still over there and deployed. So, they still need to be rotated from Iraq to the U.S. and back. The soldiers there just won't stay there indefinitely until we "leave".
It's normal.
Here is what he said in his State of the Union speech:
"As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-2010-full-text-transcript_n_439459.html
He very clearly said "all of our troops are coming home." Not possible if 800 troops from the 25th ID are going over at the end of the year. And I'm sure they're not the only group going.
-
Here is what he said in his State of the Union speech:
"As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-2010-full-text-transcript_n_439459.html
He very clearly said "all of our troops are coming home." Not possible if 800 troops from the 25th ID are going over at the end of the year. And I'm sure they're not the only group going.
RACIST!!!!!!!!!
-
RACIST!!!!!!!!!
:D
(http://www.btfh.net/posting/thats-racist.gif)
-
I don't like obama anymore than the next guy, but he said combat troops.
-
I don't like obama anymore than the next guy, but he said combat troops.
"But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)" I think "all" means everyone.
In any event, the 25th "deployed headquarters will provide command and control, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in support of security operations." Sounds like "combat troops" to me. Doesn't matter if they're from a support unit. Kinda hard to do surveillance and recon without being in harm's way.
-
25th ID will replace my higher HQ's in USF-N. They will oversee the "advise and assist" BDE's that currently training the IA/IP. My battlespace is currently run by a BDE's worth of stuff..we'll be turning it over to a reinforced BN.
-
25th ID will replace my higher HQ's in USF-N. They will oversee the "advise and assist" BDE's that currently training the IA/IP. My battlespace is currently run by a BDE's worth of stuff..we'll be turning it over to a reinforced BN.
Thanks. Are all the infantry, artillery, etc. boys leaving?
-
No...FA doesn't do anything artillery. They act as infantry. All the guns are headed home. We'll be replaced by a Stryker BN...
-
thanks hh6.
-
We are drawing down to 50K by Aug 31st. Thats a hard date. Our first guys start to leave next week. I'm here till Nov
-
Good to see you HH6. You seem to have mellowed a bit. ;)
-
Omfg. Are you freaking me?
-
::)
-
::)
That's it? ;)
-
We are drawing down to 50K by Aug 31st. Thats a hard date. Our first guys start to leave next week. I'm here till Nov
stay safe brosky
-
No...FA doesn't do anything artillery. They act as infantry. All the guns are headed home. We'll be replaced by a Stryker BN...
So the "all of our troops are coming home" statement by Obama was false. The media should be all over this. ::)
Be safe.
-
I don't see any date or deadline in this statement:
But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home
-
::) "We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.)"
-
::) "We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.)"
are the combat troops coming home in August or not?
I'm not clear on that point by HH's statements above
-
It is very very dangerous to give a date or a time.
The enemy will consolidate and wait and then as you pull out then they will attack for a psychological and political advantage
I have grown up in a violent part of the world and I saw this over and over in the 1980s and 1990s, people agree to a cease fire and as the last remants of an army pulls out they break ceasefire or peace treaty and attack.
Leave when you are ready and not before.
-
combat troops leaving soon.
those on the bases guarding the oil we'll dig up in 30 years = will be there forever
-
So not only are the troops not leaving by August, but the RIF could be much smaller.
Iraq's Political Conflict Jeopardizes Obama's Deadline for Troop Drawdown
By Mike Emanuel & Justin Fishel - FOXNews.com
Gen. Ray Odierno talks to a reporter during a visit to soldiers at Forward Operating Base Cobra in the Diyala province, Iraq, Jan. 2. (AP Photo)
Iraq's struggle to form a new government is raising concerns among U.S. military officials about President Obama's plan to withdraw 44,000 of the 94,000 U.S. troops in Iraq in 15 weeks.
Shiite Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and Sunni Ayad Allawi are the two leading contenders to be the next prime minister and both are arguing they have the right to form the next government.
The concern is that a Maliki government could leave Sunnis feeling slighted, while an Allawi government could lead to Shiite militias reactivating.
Meanwhile, violence in Iraq has increased in recent months. The latest example was a coordinated attack by three suicide bombers on a soccer field in the Shiite-dominated town of Tal Afar that killed at least 10 people and wounded 120. Al Qaeda insurgents with Sunni ties are being blamed for the attack.
Incidents like these, along with uncertainty about the next government, leave some to question whether the deadline is practical.
"It's going to be difficult," one military official told Fox News on the condition of anonymity. "Large movements always come with increased risk and since the Iraq surge, we have see the Army attempt to move such a large number of soldiers."
Even the Iraq surge in 2007 doesn't amount to the effort this drawdown is going to take. This presidential deadline calls for 44,000 troops to leave in three and a half months, while the 2007 surge moved in 30,000 troops over a three- month period.
The Army claims it can move 25,000 troops in four weeks.
But according to some in the Pentagon, moving that many troops so quickly comes with inherent risk.
"Instead of moving five bus loads of troops with security, we'll have to move 15," a military official told Fox News, explaining that it translates to bigger targets.
"You also run the risk of an emboldened adversary who ramps up his efforts to attack," the official said.
Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has said he is fully committed to drawing down to 50,000 troops in Iraq by the end of August.
His soldiers' mission is to continue building professionalism, confidence and the capability of Iraqi troops.
Odierno's top spokesman, Maj. Gen. Stephen Lanza, says the U.S. is on track to meet the troop goal and it is important to remember the progress that's been made.
"Two years ago, the Iraq government and the people here were on the brink of civil war, in terms of sectarian violence," he said. "We have not seen the people lose faith in the Iraqi security forces. We have no seen this government fracture."
Senior military sources say adjusting the 50,000-troop deadline has not been raised with the president because there is still time to do it successfully.
But these sources say if in June some of the key hurdles are not being met, then it will be up to the president to press on or adjust.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/19/iraqs-political-conflict-jeopardizes-obamas-deadline-troop-drawdown/
-
troops will be on the bases forever. accept it. write it down. check back in ten years. they didn't put those bases along the future oil pipeline and wells by accident. money in the bank, and we'll all be thanking Dick Cheney for those WMD lies in 20 years. If you bought into WMD, youre an idiot, but you'll be just as thankful as the war-hating libs will be. Money in the bank.
You'll see a spike in violence any time they tell us to leave. Voila, instant "need" for us to stay.
-
So we're just supposed to leave the guys over there, some of whom have been there over a year, until they do the final pull out? Not a logical assumption at all. Obviously guys need to be rotated out that have been serving for a while now, some have been over there 4-5 times now and need a break. This isn't anything to get your panties in a wad about.
-
Drill baby drill!!!
In the desert... and make my gas cheaper fuckers!
Go Dick Cheney!
-
yeah, i think most ppl were just mad they were lied to about WMD. They had some that were 15 years old... we sold it to them hahahahaha.
NKorea actually had WMD... they're setting off nukes threatening to flatten Cali... but we ignored that shit... actually DOWNPLAYED their capability, denied videos of their nuke testing.
Iraq actually LET US IN... let the UN teams go anywhere down to saddam's potty, and they found zilch. So, we started a war anyway.
Think about that. Nkorea? Sets off nukes and says they intend to bomb cali the minute they have a missle. Iraq? Lets us in to look anywhere, and we find nada.
yes, we're gonna love us some cheney down the road when we tap those oil wells decades from now. But for most of us with half a brain, it was just the insulting feeling of being lied to, that bothered us.
-
Sometimes you just gotta be lied to... for the good of my gas tank.
Live with it 240!
-
yeah, i know. i'm immature in my inability to just shrug it off and move on. i have to whine and bitch about it.
-
So we're just supposed to leave the guys over there, some of whom have been there over a year, until they do the final pull out? Not a logical assumption at all. Obviously guys need to be rotated out that have been serving for a while now, some have been over there 4-5 times now and need a break. This isn't anything to get your panties in a wad about.
I don't the rotation is the issue. It's the fact Obama misrepresented the fact all of our troops would be home by August.
-
BB, what year (if ever) do you think there will be zero american troops in iraq?
-
BB, what year (if ever) do you think there will be zero american troops in iraq?
Never, which is what I've always said.
-
Never, which is what I've always said.
You're grasping at straws. We have 100's of thousands of troops in bases all over the world which have been there after every major war. So when the president said at those times that our troops would be home, it was pretty much understood that all substantial combat troops would be home. Support troops for bases are not included in that, I thought that was pretty obvious.
-
You're grasping at straws. We have 100's of thousands of troops in bases all over the world which have been there after every major war. So when the president said at those times that our troops would be home, it was pretty much understood that all substantial combat troops would be home. Support troops for bases are not included in that, I thought that was pretty obvious.
What is pretty obvious is what the president said:
"As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)"
So, to recap, first, he said "all of our combat troops" would be out of Iraq by the end of August. That was a false statement, as evidenced by the article at the start of this thread. We're rotating combat troops at the end of the year.
Second, he said "all of our troops are coming home." Another false statement.
There was no "substantial" qualifier in his comments.
-
What is pretty obvious is what the president said:
"As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)"
So, to recap, first, he said "all of our combat troops" would be out of Iraq by the end of August. That was a false statement, as evidenced by the article at the start of this thread. We're rotating combat troops at the end of the year.
Second, he said "all of our troops are coming home." Another false statement.
There was no "substantial" qualifier in his comments.
Again, you're picking at straws and just being ridiculous at this point because of your inane ability to grasp simple meaning in what he was saying. Stop being so daft and move on to more important issues at hand.
-
Again, you're picking at straws and just being ridiculous at this point because of your inane ability to grasp simple meaning in what he was saying. Stop being so daft and move on to more important issues at hand.
Daft? I like that one. lol. :) I'm not picking at anything. I quoted the president. "All" means "all," unless you come from the Bill Clinton school of semantics.
One of the things that's important to me is the president misstating the scope of our involvement in Iraq. The fact he told the American people in his State of Union Address that "all of our troops are coming home," when he likely knew that was untrue, is an important issue to me. I tend to place a lot of emphasis on the integrity of our political leaders, particularly the CIC.
If you think it's unimportant, there are plenty of other threads on the board you can focus on.
-
All US combat troops will be out of Iraq by 31AUG10. I'm not sure what that means to Obama or anybody else but what that actually means is that US combat troops will not conduct unilateral combat missions outside the cities. SOF will still be able to conduct some direct action missions. We are currentt a combat bde...we will transition to an 'advise and assist" bde on 31 AUG, actually we already did on May first but don't get our additional training teams until the end of Aug. We're not talking different kinds of troops, we're talking a different mission with more emphisis on training Iraqi security forces. Rotations will continue with only about 50K left in Iraq. We don't guard the oil....there are very few US FOBs or bases located near oil wells. The country is small...everything is near each other.
-
All US combat troops will be out of Iraq by 31AUG10. I'm not sure what that means to Obama or anybody else but what that actually means is that US combat troops will not conduct unilateral combat missions outside the cities. SOF will still be able to conduct some direct action missions. We are currentt a combat bde...we will transition to an 'advise and assist" bde on 31 AUG, actually we already did on May first but don't get our additional training teams until the end of Aug. We're not talking different kinds of troops, we're talking a different mission with more emphisis on training Iraqi security forces. Rotations will continue with only about 50K left in Iraq. We don't guard the oil....there are very few US FOBs or bases located near oil wells. The country is small...everything is near each other.
Thanks HH. So the troops are not leaving, but the mission is changing. I wonder when the CIC will clarify this for the American people? ::)
-
"As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)"
::)
Schofield Barracks soldiers to deploy to Iraq
By Associated Press
Jun 22, 2010
Soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division at Schofield Barracks are preparing to deploy to Iraq this week.
The Army plans to hold a deployment ceremony for the division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team on Thursday at Sills Field on the central Oahu Army post.
The division's commanding general, Maj. Gen. Bernard S. Champoux, and Lt. Gov. James. R. "Duke" Aiona are both due to speak at the ceremony.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/96893199.html
-
No, no, no General Casey. All of our combat troops will be out of Iraq by next month. All of our troops will be out of Iraq entirely. And our troops are leaving Afghanistan in July of 2011. Didn't you hear what the Commander in Chief said? Sheesh.
Gen. Casey: America may be in Iraq and Afghanistan for another decade
Posted: July 10th, 2010
From CNN Audience Interaction Producer Eric Kuhn
(Updates with additional quotes)
Aspen, Colorado (CNN) - The United States may still be in the Afghanistan and Iraq region for another ten years, according to Gen. George Casey.
“The types of conflict that we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think are likely to be fighting here for a decade or so, are focused on the people,” Casey, the army's Chief of Staff, said Friday night at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival.
“We are not going to succeed in either place by military means alone. You are only going to succeed when the people perceive there is a government represented by their interests, when there is an economy that can give them a job to support their families, when there are educational systems that can educate their family. All those things are essential to the long term success of the military operation.”
Regarding the larger war against “a global extremist network,” Casey also said America has another "decade or so of persistent conflict."
“States, non-states and individual actors who are increasingly willing to use violence” are not going away in the short-term. Casey added, “We believe this is a long term ideological struggle.”
Casey also joked by quoting Yogi Berra: “Predictions are hard, especially when you are looking at the future.”
Earlier this week in Aspen, the United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the U.S., Yousef al-Otaiba, stated he thought the United States should use force to stop Iran's nuclear program if sanctions did not work.
Casey responded by saying "There are no good solutions and the solution may be worse than the cure."
The four-star general, who has served in the army for over 40 years and will be leaving his post in nine months, stressed the importance of the long term health of the soldiers. The army has been aggressively studying post traumatic stress and suicide rates. It is also trying to give soldiers two years to recover after one year deployment.
"It's all about the people," Casey said referring to the strength of the American army.
In a statement to CNN, Casey's media advisor, LTC Rich Spiegel, said, "General Casey was speaking of the types of conflict we will be fighting for a decade or so. He did not, nor did he intend to, imply that we would be fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan for 10 more years."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/10/gen-casey-america-may-be-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-for-another-decade/?fbid=54YJ106g8kS#more-112519
-
So we have the president telling the American people that our troops would be out by the end of August (about 30 days from now), General Casey saying we will be there for at least ten years, the president again saying we are leaving, and also saying we are still in harm's way:
"The hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq," Obama said. "But make no mistake, our commitment in Iraq is changing -- from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/02/obama.iraq.drawdown/index.html?hpt=T1
-
::)
White House downplays combat brigade pullout in Iraq
Posted: August 19th, 2010
(CNN) – With broadcast reports and pictures Wednesday evening celebrating the last U.S. brigade combat team leaving Iraq and crossing the border into Kuwait, the White House and Pentagon scrambled to explain that the war in Iraq is not over.
With the August 31 deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops fast approaching, administration officials were caught off guard by the onslaught of questions about the moment's significance.
The broadcast pictures were of a convoy of service members from the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division leaving Iraq.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Thursday, "it was an extraordinary moment. The men and women in this brigade and all others serving tours of duty in Iraq deserve our sincerest thanks for their enormous sacrifice. But this brigade leaving doesn't mean the mission has ended early.
Operation Iraqi Freedom ends August 31, and on September 1 we transition to Operation New Dawn." Operation New Dawn is the official name for the new U.S. mission in Iraq. Those remaining U.S. forces will take on a new advise-and-assist role. Pentagon Spokesman Bryan Whitman told CNN Wednesday, "I have daily conversations with Iraq to talk about important issues - they never mentioned that there was anything significant about what's been happening this evening."
Adding to the confusion about the significance of the brigade's departure, earlier in the day at fundraisers in Columbus, Ohio, and Miami, Florida, President Barack Obama made two separate on-camera statements pledging to fulfill his campaign promise of bringing the Iraq war to a responsible and swift end.
Wednesday afternoon, Obama released a letter on the White House website, whitehouse.gov, saying "[T]oday, I'm pleased to report that - thanks to the extraordinary service of our troops and civilians in Iraq - our combat mission will end this month, and we will complete a substantial drawdown of our troops."
Vietor said none of the president's statements were meant to foreshadow or give any particular weight to the 4th Stryker Brigade's departure, which happened later that evening.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/19/white-house-downplays-combat-brigade-pullout-in-iraq/#more-118595
-
Was talking to a couple guys yesterday who said we lost two from the 25th to sniper fire in Iraq.
US Likely to Keep Troops in Iraq Long after 2011 'Departure'
Sunday, 05 Sep 2010
WASHINGTON – The United States likely will need to keep thousands of troops in Iraq beyond 2011 to keep a lid on sectarian tensions and to bolster Baghdad's fledgling military, experts and former officers say.
American officials privately acknowledge that the US military presence in Iraq will almost certainly be extended, even though a security agreement in force requires all US forces to depart by the end of 2011.
The US military will be needed not only for technical tasks to keep the Iraqi armed forces afloat, but as a reassuring presence for Iraqis fearing a revival of sectarian and ethnic bloodshed, analysts said.
Baghdad's military remains heavily dependent on US logistical support, air power, equipment and expertise, while most Baghdad politicians are anxious to retain American troops as a peacekeeping force in reserve.
"The more pressing requirement is less teaching them how to use weapons and more providing reassurance to threatened internal communities that they won't be exploited by their erstwhile internal rivals," said Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations.
"What you're trying to do is make the size of the troop presence proportional to the residual fear that the groups feel towards each other," Biddle said.
Delivering technical help while playing a limited peacekeeping role would require a relatively modest number of troops, perhaps as few as three brigades or roughly 10,000 troops, several former military officers said.
"I think it could get down to even less than 10,000 and still be viable," John Ballard, a professor at National Defense University and a retired army officer, told AFP.
Nearly 50,000 US troops are now in Iraq under an "advise and assist" role, after President Barack Obama on Tuesday declared a formal end to the US combat mission.
The White House, keen to wind down the US role in Iraq, has played down the possibility of a large US force. Vice President Joe Biden's national security advisor, Anthony Blinken, has said only "dozens or maybe hundreds" of troops could remain.
But Iraqi army chief of staff General Babaker Zebari told AFP last month that his country's forces would require US support for another decade, while some analysts in Washington argue for keeping about half of the current force after 2011.
Iraq's "leaders are likely to ask that tens of thousands of American troops stay on for an extended period," Richard Haas, a top diplomat during George W. Bush's presidency, wrote Thursday.
Beyond 2011, the US military would be needed to provide badly-needed logistical support for an army that has been designed mainly as a counter-insurgency force.
The United States would provide some fire power, helicopters, fighter jets to defend a country with virtually no air force, naval defenses for ports and coveted intelligence collected from unmanned robotic planes.
The mission likely would include US special forces assisting Iraqis in manhunts of Al-Qaeda figures, according to James Danly of the Institute for the Study of War, who served in Iraq as an officer.
Apart from operational and tactical support, a US force also would have to be prepared for possible worst case scenarios, Danly and other analysts said.
If relations between the country's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds threatened to spiral out of control, or if vital oil or other infrastructure came under threat from within or outside Iraq, Baghdad could turn to the US force for help, he said.
In addition to soldiers in uniform, US officials are planning to employ thousands of private contractors to take up security duties formerly performed by troops.
Any talks on the future of the US presence will have to wait for a new government in Iraq, where politicians have failed to agree a power-sharing deal since parliamentary elections in March.
Forging agreement on a post-2011 US mission would present a delicate political challenge for Iraq, as leaders there privately back a continued presence but are reluctant to publicly endorse it.
"It's going to be very hard for any government in Iraq to negotiate anything sizable or enduring," said Ballard. "This puts us in a difficult situation."
The current security accord signed in 2008 was negotiated under a shroud of secrecy, he said, and a follow-on mission also would have to be agreed discreetly, perhaps without a detailed, long-term agreement.
"There's a need, there's a rationale. But it's going to be difficult to put it in any sort of formal way."
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/iraq-us-troops-departure/2010/09/05/id/369270
-
the US embassy, green zone, all the US bases... aren't those "officially" US soil? Just as any embassy is officially the soil of that country, even if it sits in NYC?
So yes, all our men will leave Iraq. They'll stay on US soil conveniently located along the path of a future oil pipeline in Iraq.
Is that the case here?
-
the US embassy, green zone, all the US bases... aren't those "officially" US soil? Just as any embassy is officially the soil of that country, even if it sits in NYC?
So yes, all our men will leave Iraq. They'll stay on US soil conveniently located along the path of a future oil pipeline in Iraq.
Is that the case here?
Is this is a serious question? ???
-
Is this is a serious question? ???
yes, actually. I've never heard it discussed... I know mccain was born on a US base in panama, so it was considered a US birth. Are bases like embassies - considered land of the country staying there?
It would be a wordy loophole for "we left iraq, but we do need to protect our 'embassies'.
or in other countries, is the land where the bases sit considered to belong to that country?
I'm being serious here, so don't be rude or i will so donkey punch you.
-
yes, actually. I've never heard it discussed... I know mccain was born on a US base in panama, so it was considered a US birth. Are bases like embassies - considered land of the country staying there?
It would be a wordy loophole for "we left iraq, but we do need to protect our 'embassies'.
or in other countries, is the land where the bases sit considered to belong to that country?
I'm being serious here, so don't be rude or i will so donkey punch you.
I'm never rude. :) I think you're confusing an embassy with a "base." A "base" will usually consist of a "division," which can be upwards of 15,000 troops. An embassy is just a building. There is no reasonable scenario that I can think of where we would have thousands of troops guarding an embassy in Iraq.
I talked a solider yesterday who said we're still there, essentially doing much of the same stuff. The name of the mission has changed. People are still getting shot. We're still sending "combat" troops to Iraq and will be forever. I think it will be a situation like Korea (where still have a division) and Germany, where we had thousands of troops for years.
-
i agree on the no reasonable scenario of the men staying - besides - the US likes to keep bases all over. And the saudis are kicking us 100% out, correct? Already did? We gotta set up somewhere.
jimmyveep posted a map of all the US bases in iraq, along with what would eventually (decades from now perhaps) be an oil pipeline. he posted here like 5 years ago, and it was nonsense back then because "we'll leave once the war is over!"
Well, 5 years later, and the bases are staying, 50k men are staying, and the bases just happen to overlay the path where we can still pump the Kirkuk oil fields dry thru Turkey... should iran shut down the gulf.
Really, Cheney was a genius. He foresaw the need for this oil one day, for whatever reason, and he made this war happen. "WMD" was a nice way for religious people to maintain their support for what was essentially a takeover to put up 50k men and bases for "dibbs" on someone else's oil.
Most of us wouldn't change it.... if doing so would alter our way of life. Without that oil, shit hits the fan with a nuclear Iran in 5 or 10 years... gas prices could get a lot higher.
-
240, I like you, but you're really starting to make me lose respect for you.
Repent or die at the hands of Allah's (peace be upon him) soldiers.
-
i agree on the no reasonable scenario of the men staying - besides - the US likes to keep bases all over. And the saudis are kicking us 100% out, correct? Already did? We gotta set up somewhere.
jimmyveep posted a map of all the US bases in iraq, along with what would eventually (decades from now perhaps) be an oil pipeline. he posted here like 5 years ago, and it was nonsense back then because "we'll leave once the war is over!"
Well, 5 years later, and the bases are staying, 50k men are staying, and the bases just happen to overlay the path where we can still pump the Kirkuk oil fields dry thru Turkey... should iran shut down the gulf.
Really, Cheney was a genius. He foresaw the need for this oil one day, for whatever reason, and he made this war happen. "WMD" was a nice way for religious people to maintain their support for what was essentially a takeover to put up 50k men and bases for "dibbs" on someone else's oil.
Most of us wouldn't change it.... if doing so would alter our way of life. Without that oil, shit hits the fan with a nuclear Iran in 5 or 10 years... gas prices could get a lot higher.
Dude this nonsense. We don't control or own the oil. We pay for it. We didn't go to war for a "pipeline." That is conspiracy theory garbage. No, "religious people" didn't support the war because of WMDs. ::) Where the heck do you come up with such drivel?
-
yeah, but we pay for it in dollars $$$$
Saddam was switching to the euro in 2003, wasn't he?
granted, i could give a shit about the iraqi people - i'm not some bleeding heart lib. If there's oil, and they were lucky enough to be born on it but not smart enough to guard it, that's just darwinism.
-
I couldn't let this one go.....I'm in friggen Kirkuk...we aren't pumping any goddam oil. We aren't protecting the oil...we barely even mention oil. The retards don't attack the oil piplines. Should we be pumping the oil...sure...but we're not. A ton of companies are trying to square their oil infrastructure away but the tech is so old we're not sure how its still working. The Germans have big contracts here but none of the big oil companies are controling shit. The Iraqi national oil companies NOC (Northern oil Company) and the Southen Oil company all subcontract out....alot of the money will eventually flow back here based on argreements.......beside s all that ....240 your wrong again.
-
b]240 your wrong again.[/b]
8)
-
thanks for the input hh6.
-
Bush lied, people died.
No blood for oil.
Build schools not bombs.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!
-
I couldn't let this one go.....I'm in friggen Kirkuk...we aren't pumping any goddam oil. We aren't protecting the oil...we barely even mention oil. The retards don't attack the oil piplines. Should we be pumping the oil...sure...but we're not. A ton of companies are trying to square their oil infrastructure away but the tech is so old we're not sure how its still working. The Germans have big contracts here but none of the big oil companies are controling shit. The Iraqi national oil companies NOC (Northern oil Company) and the Southen Oil company all subcontract out....alot of the money will eventually flow back here based on argreements.......beside s all that ....240 your wrong again.
But he posted pictures with a map and everything. :)
-
:-\
Iraqi Soldier Kills Two U.S. Troops
Published September 07, 2010 | Associated Press
BAGHDAD -- An Iraqi soldier sprayed gunfire at American troops guarding one of their commanders as he visited an Iraqi military base on Tuesday and killed two of them, the first U.S. servicemen to die since President Barack Obama declared an official end to combat operations in the country last week.
Even after the U.S. dramatically reduced the number of troops and rebranded its mission in Iraq, the attack was a reminder that Americans still have to defend themselves in a dangerous country where Iraqi forces only have a tenuous hold on security. Nine Americans were wounded in Tuesday's shooting.
The attack also showed that even within the walls of U.S. and Iraqi military bases, American soldiers can still be drawn into fighting.
The American commander was meeting with Iraqi military personnel at the base near the city of Tuz Khormato, about 130 miles north of Baghdad.
The assailant opened fire after an argument and was killed in the shootout that followed, said the city's police chief, Col. Hussein Rashid. He did not provide details on the nature of the argument.
"This is a tragic and cowardly act and is certainly not reflective of the Iraqi security forces," said Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo, the American commander in charge of U.S. forces in northern Iraq.
The U.S. military is investigating, and the soldiers' names were being withheld until their families were notified.
The deaths raise to at least 4,418 the number of U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
The American military has reduced its footprint in Iraq from a one-time high of 170,000 troops to just under 50,000 troops as of Aug. 31.
The remaining troops are tasked with training the Iraqi security forces, providing security for some State Department missions and assisting the Iraqi forces in hunting down insurgent groups.
But U.S. troops are still able to defend themselves and their bases and still come under attack.
On Sunday, American troops in eastern Baghdad helped Iraqi forces repel an assault on an Iraqi military headquarters in what was the first exchange of gunfire involving Americans since the August deadline.
In a statement posted on a militant website, the Islamic State of Iraq took responsibility for the hour-long assault Sunday on the headquarters of the Iraqi Army's 11th Division. It was the second assault on the complex in less than a month and showed the challenges Iraqi security forces are facing after the U.S. change of mission
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/07/official-iraqi-gunman-kills-soldiers/?test=latestnews
-
;D
-
:-\
Iraqi Soldier Kills Two U.S. Troops
Published September 07, 2010 | Associated Press
BAGHDAD -- An Iraqi soldier sprayed gunfire at American troops guarding one of their commanders as he visited an Iraqi military base on Tuesday and killed two of them, the first U.S. servicemen to die since President Barack Obama declared an official end to combat operations in the country last week.
Even after the U.S. dramatically reduced the number of troops and rebranded its mission in Iraq, the attack was a reminder that Americans still have to defend themselves in a dangerous country where Iraqi forces only have a tenuous hold on security. Nine Americans were wounded in Tuesday's shooting.
The attack also showed that even within the walls of U.S. and Iraqi military bases, American soldiers can still be drawn into fighting.
The American commander was meeting with Iraqi military personnel at the base near the city of Tuz Khormato, about 130 miles north of Baghdad.
The assailant opened fire after an argument and was killed in the shootout that followed, said the city's police chief, Col. Hussein Rashid. He did not provide details on the nature of the argument.
"This is a tragic and cowardly act and is certainly not reflective of the Iraqi security forces," said Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo, the American commander in charge of U.S. forces in northern Iraq.
The U.S. military is investigating, and the soldiers' names were being withheld until their families were notified.
The deaths raise to at least 4,418 the number of U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.
The American military has reduced its footprint in Iraq from a one-time high of 170,000 troops to just under 50,000 troops as of Aug. 31.
The remaining troops are tasked with training the Iraqi security forces, providing security for some State Department missions and assisting the Iraqi forces in hunting down insurgent groups.
But U.S. troops are still able to defend themselves and their bases and still come under attack.
On Sunday, American troops in eastern Baghdad helped Iraqi forces repel an assault on an Iraqi military headquarters in what was the first exchange of gunfire involving Americans since the August deadline.
In a statement posted on a militant website, the Islamic State of Iraq took responsibility for the hour-long assault Sunday on the headquarters of the Iraqi Army's 11th Division. It was the second assault on the complex in less than a month and showed the challenges Iraqi security forces are facing after the U.S. change of mission
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/07/official-iraqi-gunman-kills-soldiers/?test=latestnews
They were assigned to the 25th. :-\
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20100909_2_Schofield_soldiers_killed_after_Iraqi_opens_fire_at_base.html
-
800 Schofield soldiers to deploy to Iraq
By William Cole
POSTED: 01:45 p.m. HST, Nov 19, 2010
A deployment ceremony will be held Wednesday at Schofield Barracks as 800 soldiers with the 25th Infantry Division headquarters prepare to deploy to Iraq.
Maj. Gen. Bernard Champoux, the 25th Division commander, will take over command in Baghdad and in Anbar province to the west, the latter being the biggest geographic province in Iraq and which includes onetime flash points Ramadi and Fallujah.
Most of the soldiers will leave for Iraq after Thanksgiving.
The Schofield soldiers will be part of a diminishing U.S. presence in Iraq, with fewer than 50,000 U.S. troops left in the country.
The U.S. had planned to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. U.S. forces have dropped from a high of nearly 170,000 during the surge in 2007.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, recently said the U.S. is leaving options open for extending a troop presence in the country.
Champoux previously said he would be in charge of about 8,000 U.S. troops. By comparison, during the surge, there were 28,000 in Baghdad alone.
During the year-long deployment — which will extend to the formal mission end date for U.S. forces in the country — the Schofield soldiers will continue to advise, assist and train Iraqi Security Forces.
The name of the mission was changed on Sept. 1 from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn to reflect the end of U.S. combat missions.
The deployment ceremony will be held at 2 p.m. on Wednesday and include remarks by Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona.
About 3,700 soldiers with the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team out of Hawaii have been in northern Iraq since June and July. The unit, relabeled the 2nd Advise and Assist Brigade, is expected to be in Iraq until next June.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/109314204.html
-
Schofield Barracks soldier killed in Iraq
By William Cole
POSTED: 11:56 a.m. HST, Nov 22, 2010
A fifth Hawaii-based Stryker Brigade soldier has been killed in Iraq on the unit’s latest deployment, evidence that while violence is down, the war is far from over.
Sgt. David J. Luff Jr., 29, of Hamilton, Ohio, died yesterday in Tikrit of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit with small arms fire, the Pentagon said.
He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment “Wolfhounds” of the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks.
U.S. Forces-Iraq, the American military command in the country, said in a release that a U.S. soldier died from enemy fire during “advisory operations,” but provided no other details.
About 3,700 Stryker Brigade soldiers are in northern Iraq on a year-long deployment that began in June and July.
Four other Stryker Brigade soldiers have been killed — two by an Iraqi army soldier, one by a roadside bomb and one in a grenade attack on a vehicle.
Another 800 Schofield soldiers have started deploying to Iraq with the 25th Infantry Division headquarters. A deployment ceremony will be held Wednesday and the bulk of the soldiers will leave after Thanksgiving.
The Iraq mission’s name was changed on Sept. 1 from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn to reflect the end of U.S. combat activity. U.S. troops now provide an advise, assist and training role for Iraqi forces.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/109966909.html
-
Two U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq
The deaths are the first military fatalities since the killing of a U.S. soldier in early December. Meanwhile, a Christian woman is shot dead at home in Baghdad.
By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times
January 4, 2011
Reporting from Baghdad —
Two U.S. soldiers were killed in action in central Iraq over the weekend, the military announced Monday.
Officials provided no further details about the deaths, the first U.S. military fatalities in Iraq since the killing of a soldier by a sniper in early December in the eastern province of Wasit.
Get dispatches from Times correspondents around the globe delivered to your inbox with our daily World newsletter. Sign up »
The killings raised American military deaths in Iraq since March 2003, when U.S.-led forces invaded the country, to 4,432, according to the independent website icasualties.org. Of those, 3,512 were killed by hostile fire.
About 49,000 U.S. soldiers remain in Iraq, down from about 170,000 troops in 2007 at the height of the military's buildup to quell the country's civil war. Those troops are expected to be withdrawn from Iraq at the end of 2011 when an Iraqi-U.S. security agreement authorizing their presence expires.
The U.S. military declared its formal combat operations over at the end of August, and the remaining soldiers are present largely to train Iraqi forces. However, American troops are called in by Iraqi forces on occasion for sensitive missions.
With the change in the U.S. forces' mission over time, the death toll among Americans in combat has dropped significantly. Twenty-two U.S. troops were killed last year by hostile fire, down from a high of 767 in 2007, according to icasualties.org.
Armed Shiite and Sunni groups still view U.S. forces as a valid target. The soldier killed in December was guarding a team of diplomats who were traveling around to meet local officials. The recent killings illustrate the continuing precarious situation for military personnel.
Also Monday, gunmen broke into the Baghdad home of a 44-year-old Christian woman and shot her dead, a police official said. Younadam Kanna, a Christian member of parliament, said police suspected the killing was not related to politics, and he warned that at times the banner of Al Qaeda in Iraq is used to shield criminal activities.
"Everything is hanged on Al Qaeda," the lawmaker said. "These people are both criminals and terrorists."
Since Oct. 31, when the siege of a church in Baghdad left 58 people dead, militants have repeatedly targeted the minority group, including several attacks recently against its elderly and women. Christians have also been threatened by Islamic militants in the northern city of Mosul.
Early Monday, a policeman was shot dead in the capital by men with silencer-equipped pistols, a police official said. The killing came after the shooting of four police officers in the span of an hour late Sunday, security sources said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-us-casualties-20110104,0,7248086.story
-
U.S. military: Militants kill 2 U.S. soldiers in Iraq
By Lara Jakes
Associated Press
POSTED: 02:46 a.m. HST, Apr 03, 2011
BAGHDAD >> Two American soldiers were killed in a rocket attack that struck their unit in southern Iraq, the U.S. military said Sunday.
Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, confirmed that rockets hit the troops’ unit but declined to give their names or say where in southern Iraq, pending notification of next of kin.
About 47,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, down from 166,000 in October 2007 at the peak of the military surge that kept the country from dissolving into civil war.
But Shiite militias in Iraq’s south that are linked to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have vowed to continue targeting U.S. troops until all have left.
Under a 2008 security agreement between Baghdad and Washington, all U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq by the end of the year. In an Associated Press interview Saturday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said he sees no need to change the agreement but said he would leave that decision to parliament if lawmakers vote to keep them.
Saturday’s deaths raises to at least 4,443 the number of U.S. military personnel who have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. That’s according to an Associated Press count.
The last attack to leave more than one U.S. service member dead was Jan. 15, when an Iraqi army solider opened fire on U.S. troops and killed two during a training exercise in Mosul, located 225 miles (360 kilometers) northwest of Baghdad.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20110404_US_military_Militants_kill_2_US_soldiers_in_Iraq.html
-
The plan all along was to be there forever. Just like we are still in Germany and Korea. 25th ID is not a support unit, it is made up of Brigade Combat Teams. Obama lied once again.
-
The plan all along was to be there forever. Just like we are still in Germany and Korea. 25th ID is not a support unit, it is made up of Brigade Combat Teams. Obama lied once again.
Not true. Dude you are not in the military. ::)
-
2 U.S. Soldiers Killed In Southern Iraq
04/23/11 08:39 AM ET
BAGHDAD — The U.S. military says two American soldiers have been killed while conducting operations in southern Iraq.
In a statement, released on Saturday, the military says the deaths occurred Friday.
No further details about how they died were released.
The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense.
The death raises to at least 4,450 the number of U.S. military personnel who have died in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. That's according to an Associated Press count.
Nine U.S. servicemembers taking part in Operation New Dawn, as the Iraq campaign is called, have died so far this month. Most were from non-combat related incidents.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/23/2-us-soldiers-killed-in-s_n_852850.html
-
Rocket Attack Kills 3 American Soldiers in Iraq
Published June 30, 2011
Associated Press
Baghdad – A rocket attack on a U.S. base near Iraq's border with Iran killed three American soldiers, an official said Thursday, blaming the strike on a Shiite militia linked to Tehran.
The deaths came at the end of the bloodiest month for U.S. troops in Iraq in two years, and with just six months before the American military is scheduled to leave after more than eight years of war.
Wednesday's rocket attack struck a U.S. base in southern Iraq that is located a few miles (kilometers) from the Iranian border, a U.S. military official said. He said the type of weapons used bore the hallmarks of a Shiite militia with strong links to Iran.
The official refused to give more details, and would not describe what kind of rockets were used against the base, or where it was. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.
American intelligence officials have long believed that the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah, or Hezbollah Brigades, is one of the only militias to use weapons known in military jargon as IRAMs, or improvised rocket-assisted mortars, against U.S. troops. The weapons are made in Iran.
Kataib Hezbollah, which has links to the Lebanon-based Hezbollah group, is solely focused on attacking U.S. troops and other American personnel.
The U.S. military is preparing to leave Iraq by the end of the year, as required by a 2008 security agreement between Baghdad and Washington.
But as both governments now consider extending the deadline to have thousands of troops remain in Iraq into 2012 -- in part to counter Iran's influence over the unstable nation -- at least three major Shiite militias have stepped up attacks on soldiers to force the military out.
Kataib Hezbollah claimed responsibility for a June 6 rocket attack on a U.S. base in Baghdad that killed five soldiers. In all, 15 U.S. troops have died this month in Iraq, all but one in hostile attacks. It's the highest number of military deaths in Iraq since June 2009.
Wednesday's deaths bring to 4,469 the number of American troops who have died in Iraq. That's according to an Associated Press count.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/30/us-military-says-3-american-troops-killed-in-iraq/?test=latestnews
-
All troops out of Iraq huh? ::)
Sources: 10,000 US troops could remain in Iraq
White House would keep forces on ground through next year if requested by Baghdad
By LARA JAKES
The Associated Press
updated 7/5/2011
BAGHDAD — The White House is offering to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq next year, U.S. officials say, despite opposition from many Iraqis and key Democratic Party allies who demand that President Barack Obama bring home the American military as promised.
Any extension of the military's presence, however, depends on a formal request from Baghdad — which must weigh questions about the readiness of Iraqi security forces against fears of renewed militant attacks and unrest if U.S. soldiers stay beyond the December pullout deadline.
Iraq is not expected to decide until September at the earliest when the 46,000 U.S. forces left in the country had hoped to start heading home.
Already, though, the White House has worked out options to keep between 8,500 and 10,000 active-duty troops to continue training Iraqi security forces during 2012, according to senior Obama administration and U.S. military officials in interviews with The Associated Press. The figures also were noted by foreign diplomats in Baghdad briefed on the issue.
All spoke on condition of anonymity to frankly discuss the sensitive matter during interviews over the past two weeks.
White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday said the Pentagon is still planning for all U.S. troops to withdraw by year's end, noting that time is running out for Iraq's government to ask them to stay.
"We have said for a long time now if the Iraqi government asks us to maintain some level of troops beyond that end of the year deadline, we would consider it," Carney told reporters in Washington.
Story: New plan to defeat al-Qaida: 'Surgical' strikes, not costly wars
He appeared to back off that possibility, however, adding: "That doesn't necessarily mean we would do it. We would just consider it. And I really don't have any more information on that possible outcome because, again, we haven't even gotten a request."
Any change in the U.S. military withdrawal timetable in Iraq — after more than eight years and more than 4,450 U.S. military deaths — could open up difficult political confrontations for Obama as pressure builds to close out the Iraq mission and stick to pledges to draw down troops in Afghanistan.
The Senate's top Democrat, Sen. Harry Reid, told the AP that the high cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq — given a mounting U.S. debt crisis and Iraq's fledgling security gains — is no longer necessary.
Reid, the Senate majority leader, estimated nearly $1 trillion has been spent in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in 2003, including $50 billion this year alone.
"As Iraq becomes increasingly capable, it is time for our own troops to return home by the end of the year and for these precious resources to be directed elsewhere," Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said in the statement. "There is no question that the United States must continue to provide support for the Iraqis as they progress, but now is the time for our military mission to come to a close."
Reid was responding to a request for comment after 15 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq in June, mostly by Shiite militias, in the deadliest month for the American military here in two years. It was the first public statement by a top party leader to oppose Obama's policy in Iraq, and may signal splintering Democratic support over his war planning just as he ramps up his 2012 re-election campaign.
Story: June deadliest month in 2 years for US troops in Iraq
Iraq has flown under Washington's political radar for much of the past year, and Democrats who want Obama to end the war this year as promised vowed to exert more pressure on the White House.
"With a false declaration that combat operations are over in Iraq, what is now Operation New Dawn has ironically become a forgotten war," said Ashwin Madia, a former Marine who served in Iraq in 2005-06 and is now interim chairman of VoteVets.org. "That is about to change."
The group has raised millions of dollars for Democratic Party candidates.
Though violence has dramatically dropped from just a few years ago, when Iraq teetered on the brink of civil war, attacks still happen almost daily. On Tuesday, Iraqi police said at least 35 people were killed when two bombs exploded outside a city council headquarters just north of Baghdad.
Running for president in 2008, Obama promised to withdraw all troops from Iraq — what he had described years earlier as "a dumb war, a rash war." Shortly after he took office, he pledged to stick to a Dec. 31, 2011, deadline negotiated between Washington and Baghdad for all U.S. forces to leave Iraq.
Recently, however, the door gradually has been opening to push the deadline. In May, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates signaled Obama was willing to keep troops in Iraq beyond December. Last week, Navy Vice Adm. William McRaven, nominated to command U.S. special operations forces, said a small commando force should remain.
Without a request from Iraq, fewer than 200 active duty troops would stay at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad as military advisers, a role that is common for American diplomatic missions worldwide. More than 166,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq in October 2007, the peak of the Pentagon's surge.
In Baghdad, the debate over whether U.S. troops should stay past the deadline is topic No. 1 for Iraq's government.
Iraq's top military commander, Gen. Babaker Shawkat Zebari, has long maintained that Iraqi security forces need another decade of training and aid before they are ready to protect the country alone, especially its air space and borders. Iraq sits on the fault line between Shiite powerhouse Iran and mostly Sunni nations across the rest of the Mideast, which share U.S. concerns about Tehran's influence growing in Baghdad if American troops leave.
Iraqi Kurds, who have long relied on American forces to protect them, are lobbying for U.S. troops to stay.
But Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refuses to publicly endorse a troops' extension. One of his critical political allies — a Shiite movement headed by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr — has threatened widespread violence if troops stay. Al-Sadr's militias once waged fierce attacks on U.S. forces.
Some of Iraq's Sunnis also oppose an extension. The Sunni Islamic Party in Iraq's northern Ninevah province, in a statement this week, called allowing the so-called "occupation forces" to remain "a great mistake against Iraq and its people."
President Jalal Talabani plans a meeting as early as this week of Iraq's political leaders to discuss the troop issue — which al-Maliki says he does not want to make alone.
"All political groups should be making this decision, because we do not want to shoulder the responsibility alone for such a grave and sovereign issue," said Shiite lawmaker Ali al-Shilah, a member of the State of Law coalition headed by al-Maliki. "The situation is still complicated because all the political blocs are avoiding giving a final and clear decision on this."
One of the main sticking points is how to ensure that troops on duty all have legal immunity from Iraqi courts if they remain. Al-Shilah called it "very difficult, if not impossible due to the complicated political situation."
The U.S. will not keep thousands of troops in Iraq without immunity. But it's far from certain parliament will approve it. Iraq is still seething from the 2007 shooting by guards from the security firm then called Blackwater Worldwide, which left 17 people dead but could not be prosecuted by Iraq courts because of an immunity deal at the time.
Al-Maliki also would not want any remaining U.S. troops to look like combat forces, and potentially would strip them of huge armored trucks or have them live on Iraqi bases. The U.S. will not agree to that.
In a July 1 letter, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey told U.S. forces in and around Baghdad to expect to stay in Iraq "longer than they expected" until at least after Christmas, just days before the withdrawal deadline.
There is no end-date stated in Dempsey's letter, which was posted on the website of the Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division that is currently headquartered in Baghdad.
"We're well aware that the request means many of you will be separated from your families for a second consecutive Christmas holiday," Dempsey wrote. "I can assure you we wouldn't have asked this of you if it wasn't vitally important for the accomplishment of our mission in Iraq."
Associated Press writer Sameer N. Yacoub in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this report.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43647351/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
-
More lies
-
Schofield soldiers' morale takes hit with extension in Iraq
By William Cole
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jul 07, 2011
About 800 Schofield Barracks soldiers have had their yearlong deployment extended in Iraq, and will be part of the last command element overseeing the exodus of up to 46,000 remaining U.S. personnel ahead of a Dec. 31 deadline for American forces to leave the country, officials said.
For families of the deployed soldiers, it's not the news they wanted to hear.
The last of the 25th Infantry Division headquarters soldiers were supposed to return home in early December. But the deployment has been extended 31 days by the Army, meaning another missed holiday season for many with a new final pullout date of Jan. 2, 2012.
"It's very frustrating for me because you hold out that hope (of), OK, we have to make it through the year, but they are going to be home for Christmas. That's what you hold out for," said Dayshawn Pierre, a mother of three in Hawaii whose husband is a private first class in Iraq.
Many of the soldiers and their families found out about the extension last week. Both Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Martin Dempsey and Maj. Gen. Bernard Champoux, the deployed commander of the 25th Infantry Division, wrote letters expressing their gratitude to the soldiers for the additional sacrifice.
Champoux is commander of U.S. Division-Center in Baghdad, but he will control all remaining U.S. forces as the drawdown from Iraq occurs, officials said.
"This extension allows us to properly complete the vital task of providing mission command to U.S. forces in Iraq at a critical time," Champoux said in a letter posted on the 25th Division website. "I fully appreciate the impact of this extension and know what it means to you and your families, particularly during the holiday season."
He also said, "This is the right thing to do."
"Our country and many of you have made a huge investment in the success of our mission in Iraq," he added. "Separations, personal sacrifices, and many gave their last full measure of devotion. I believe we now own all of that, and have a responsibility to complete this mission correctly."
About 46,000 U.S. service members remain in Iraq, according to the Pentagon.
The U.S. agreed in 2008 to remove its troops by the end of 2011. Publicly, the Pentagon continues to pursue that goal, but the reported that the White House is offering to keep up to 10,000 troops in Iraq next year. The U.S. State Department is expected to have a large presence in Iraq as well.
"The process for troops to remain in the country after (the Dec. 31 deadline) begins with an official request from the Iraqi government, and no such request has been made," Pentagon spokesman Marine Col. Dave Lapan said Wednesday in a Defense Department news story. "Until the government of Iraq makes a request, there is no number."
Champoux and the 25th Division headquarters are based out of Victory Base Complex in Baghdad. Champoux's U.S. Division-Center is responsible for the cities of Baghdad, Fallujah and Ramadi.
U.S. forces in the country advise, train, assist and equip Iraqi security forces as part of Operation New Dawn. They are now also closing down U.S. bases.
The Jan. 2 pullout for the Schofield soldiers "is past the (Dec. 31 deadline), but it takes about two days to pack up and get everyone on aircraft," said Col. Michael Donnelly, a spokesman for U.S. Army Pacific at Fort Shafter.
Kristen Martin, whose husband, Sgt. Chase Martin, is a Schofield soldier in Baghdad, said she was expecting him home at the beginning of December.
"You get prepared for a year, maybe a little less, and it's hard when they tack on a month, but it's their job, and what happens happens, and you've just got to go with it," she said. "I don't like it. I wish he would come home (earlier)."
Morale in Iraq took a hit with news of the extension, she said.
"I have a lot of his soldiers and friends that are there on my Facebook page, and a lot of them are pretty bummed," she said.
The two other "division" commands in Iraq, U.S. Division-North and U.S. Division-South, are closing up shop in Iraq, meanwhile.
The Austin (Texas) American-Statesman said 700 soldiers with the National Guard's 36th Infantry Division, which has control of the south, arrived in Basra in January and are expected to return home in September. The soldiers are closing bases and preparing for the American exit through Kuwait.
At Contingency Operating Base Speicher, where the 4th Infantry Division has control of the north, the last on-base Burger King will close next month and shops run by Iraqis are being shuttered, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported.
Julia Townsend, Sgt. Chase Martin's mom, said she knew her son's deployment could be extended, but it also could be shortened.
"So I understand that," she said. "But when we're getting so close to the end and there are other soldiers that we hear are coming home and we find out ours have to stay longer, it's definitely really heartbreaking."
She added that she posted on the 25th Division Facebook page that she understands there's still a mission in Iraq, "but I think it's time to turn it over to the Iraqis and bring our men and women home. We've been there long enough."
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20110707_Schofield_soldiers_morale_takes_hit_with_extension_in_Iraq.html
-
Like MaoBama gives a fuck. ::) ::)
-
"As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-2010-full-text-transcript_n_439459.html
::)
-
No, Iraq, you have nothing to decide, because all of our troops are leaving. President Obama said so.
Iraq to decide on U.S. troop presence, Iraq's president says
By Mohammed Tawfeeq, CNN
July 10, 2011
Baghdad (CNN) -- Iraqi leaders aim to decide within two weeks whether U.S. troops should stay in the country past the end of the year, Iraq's president announced.
Leading politicians "are to consult their friends, their allies and their parties to come up with a final result after two weeks," President Jalal Talabani said in remarks broadcast on Iraqiya state television.
Leaders of key Iraqi political blocs, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition, met Saturday at the president's residence to debate that and other key issues, Talabani said after the meeting.
Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya bloc was also represented, he said.
American troops are scheduled to depart from Iraq at the end of the year under a bilateral agreement between the Iraqi government and the United States.
But the two countries could agree to keep some U.S. troops in Iraq, which now has about 46,000 American service members. The figure is down from 170,000 in 2007, during the peak of sectarian violence.
Last month, radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr thanked followers who offered to launch attacks against the U.S. military in Iraq should he reinstate his notorious Mehdi Army militia, according to a posting on his website.
Al-Sadr vowed earlier this year to "escalate armed resistance" if the U.S. military does not pull its troops as scheduled, a move that could destabilize the country should the Mehdi Army repeat the bloody battles it waged against American and Iraqi forces during the height of violence.
The al-Sadr movement emerged as one of the kingmakers in Iraqi politics last year when it won 39 parliamentary seats. The bloc's support played a major role in al-Maliki getting his second term in office.
Separately, a high-level U.S. delegation visited al-Maliki in his office Saturday, the Iraqi government said.
It included deputy national security advisor Denis McDonough; Thomas Nides, a deputy secretary of state; and Anthony Blinken, a national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, Iraq said.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/07/10/iraq.us.troops/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
-
He's getting closer to zero (no pun intended). Note that the commanders disagree with him.
Sources: Obama Administration to Drop Troop Levels in Iraq to 3,000
Published September 06, 2011
FoxNews.com
The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.
Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
The generals on the ground had requested that the number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year reach about 27,000. But, there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of that decision that the number was then reduced to 10,000.
Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.
Now, sources confirm that the administration has pushed the Pentagon to cut the number even lower, and commanders are concerned for the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.
"We can't secure everybody with only 3,000 on the ground nor can we do what we need to with the Iraqis," one source said.
A senior military official said by reducing the number of troops to 3,000, the White House has effectively reduced the mission to training only.
"There is almost no room for security operations in that number; it will be almost purely a training mission," this official said. The official added that a very small number of troops within that 3,000 will be dedicated to counter-terrorism efforts, but that's not nearly what Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, wanted.
This shift is seen by various people as a cost-saving measure and a political measure. The only administration official fighting for at least 10,000 forces to stay in Iraq at the end of the year was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sources said. But she has lost the battle.
Responding to the news, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has traveled to Iraq many times, said that in all the conversations he has had on force strength, he has "never heard a number as low as 3,000 troops to secure the gains Iraqis have won over the years."
Lieberman said his first question for the administration is whether the number is one Iraqis had requested or if it was chosen according to other criteria.
Any of the plans will require Iraqi approval, and on that front, the Pentagon recently secured a commitment from the Iraqis to start negotiations, but they have not agreed to any number.
"Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made," said Panetta spokesman George Little. "We continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president."
On Tuesday, the head of the three-province Kurdish autonomous region in the north of Iraq, warned that if American troops leave sectarian violence might resurface. Massoud Barzani urged the central Iraqi government to sign an agreement with the U.S. to keep forces in the country.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/sources-obama-administration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/
-
Yeah....when the wheels come off the wagon in Iraq it will laid at the feet of the piece of shit in the White House. 3k can't project power and defend themselves at the same time. Barry is a joke.
The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.
Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
Panetta, touring sites Tuesday in advance of the Sept. 11 10th commemoration, insisted "no decision has been made" on the number of troops to stay in Iraq.
"That obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.
Currently, about 45,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. The generals on the ground had requested a reduced number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year, but there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of keeping that many in Iraq. The military's troop-level request was then reduced to 10,000.
Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.
Now, sources confirm that the administration has pushed the Pentagon to cut the number even lower, and commanders are concerned for the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.
"We can't secure everybody with only 3,000 on the ground nor can we do what we need to with the Iraqis," one source said. Another source said the actual total could be as high as 5,000 when additional support personnel are included.
A senior military official said by reducing the number of troops to 3,000, the White House has effectively reduced the mission to training only.
"There is almost no room for security operations in that number; it will be almost purely a training mission," this official said. The official added that a very small number of troops within that 3,000 will be dedicated to counter-terrorism efforts, but that's not nearly what Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, wanted.
This shift is seen by various people as a cost-saving measure and a political measure. White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that the U.S. has operated responsibly to meet the year-end deadline to remove troops from Iraq, per a 2008 Status of Forces Agreement.
He added that negotiations with the Iraqis will determine the outcome, and while costs are a factor in every decision, the administration makes decisions on what is best for the United States.
The only administration official fighting for at least 10,000 forces to stay in Iraq at the end of the year was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sources said. But she has lost the battle.
Responding to the news, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has traveled to Iraq many times, said that in all the conversations he has had on force strength, he has "never heard a number as low as 3,000 troops to secure the gains Iraqis have won over the years."
Lieberman said his first question for the administration is whether the number is one Iraqis had requested or if it was chosen according to other criteria.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said reducing the troop presence to 3,000 "would put at risk all the United States has fought for in Iraq."
"The biggest winner of a U.S. decision to move to 3,000 troops in Iraq would the Iranian regime. The ayatollahs would rejoice," he said.
Any of the plans will require Iraqi approval, and on that front, the Pentagon recently secured a commitment from the Iraqis to start negotiations, but they have not agreed to any number.
"Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made," said Panetta spokesman George Little. "We continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president."
On Tuesday, the head of the three-province Kurdish autonomous region in the north of Iraq, warned that if American troops leave sectarian violence might resurface. Massoud Barzani urged the central Iraqi government to sign an agreement with the U.S. to keep forces in the country
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/sources-obama-administration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/#ixzz1XDfGKMc1
-
Yeah. I posted this here: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=329992.75
No surprise he's not listening to his military folks.
-
Sorry dude..delete as needed.
-
"Mission Accomplished"
Thank you George W. Bush for preemptively invading a country thousands of miles away from America based on lies about WMD's that was motivated by a personal agenda and probably greed as well. It's nice to know 8 longs years later, billions and billions of money wasted,spent, lost etc, thousands of American Families shattered by the loses of their young men and women, the thousands of maimed and scarred soldiers, the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed, the thousands of innocent people killed by insurgents, a irresponsible occupation plan from and itellectually arrogant defense secretary that left the contry in years of chaos THAT now we need to make sure that we keep thousands of troops there for God knows how long to protect the country from becoming another 1975 Vietnam.
At least mow, you got a Liberal president you can Blame for every wrong move now as he he has to deal with this fucking mess, as if he he hasn't already fucked up the country more than is was.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Auto post response:
1. We should have never invaded anyway
2. Being that we did anyway, we should have at least did it right
3. Time to get the fuck out. We wanted them to be a democracy....we then it's up to them now.
4. The days of babysitting at the cost of American lives and money needs to come to an end.
-
weren't a lot of repubs (particularly tea party members) saying we need to get the hell out of iraq and spend the $ fixing our own damn roads and infratruture, instead of protecting ours?
-
Auto post response from pro Iraq war posters:
"Well many democrats voted for the war too"
What the he'll does it matter who voted for it? What's wrong is wrong.
The tea party is right.
-
Obama didn't hide the fact that he wanted troops out of Iraq. The American people voted him into office.
I'm a little confused about all the outrage now.
-
Sorry dude..delete as needed.
No worries. I'll just merge.
-
U.S. Military Hands Camp Victory Over to Iraqis
Published December 02, 2011
FoxNews.com
CAMP VICTORY, Iraq – The U.S. military says it has handed over Camp Victory, a sprawling base at the edge of Baghdad that used to be the headquarters for the U.S. military, to the Iraqi government.
The handover of the sprawling complex of grandiose former palaces of Saddam Hussein, encircled by 27 miles of blast walls, comes as American troops prepare to pull out by the end of the month after nearly nine years.
November 7, 2011: U.S. Army soldier walks past military armored vehicles are ready to be shipped out of Iraq at Camp Victory in Baghdad.
"The Victory Base Complex was officially signed over to the receivership of the Iraqi government this morning [Friday]. The base is no longer under U.S. control and is now under the full authority of the government of Iraq," Col. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for the U.S. forces in Iraq, was quoted as saying by AFP.
He added, "There was no ceremony, just a signing of paperwork akin to the closing of a home sale."
U.S. vice president Joe Biden spoke Thursday at one of the palaces during a ceremony to mark the imminent U.S. withdrawal, which Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has dubbed "the day of fulfilling the promise."
The Iraqi claimants to the compound are numerous, and the ideas for its use are many, ranging from the somber -- military barracks, Hussein museums and cultural centers -- to the more business-minded, such as five-star hotels or an amusement park, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Another dilemma looms -- what to do with Hussein's markings throughout the camp, originally a complex of palaces and artificial lakes built for the glory of the ex-strongman.
This is especially problematic for Maliki and other officials who have made it their mission to erase any reminder of Hussein and his epoch. Maliki's aides have given conflicting signals over whether any of the palaces on the compound would be used by the prime minister.
Many other Hussein-era palaces around the country once occupied by the U.S. military already were handed to the Iraqi side. Most remain military installations, others are in dispute.
The U.S. military, in addition to carving bases out of Camp Victory's palaces and the vast surrounding farmland, and giving streets and pathways names such as "Washington" and "Lost Lake," has spent tens of millions of dollars to retrofit the area to its needs, with modifications including plumbing, electricity supply and ice-making.
The U.S. military's top brass in Iraq and tens of thousands of soldiers once resided here, near the international airport about 10 miles west of downtown Baghdad, enjoying a slice of Americana, with perks such as Salsa night, speedway racing and fly fishing.
In the process, the military went out of its way to preserve important vestiges of Hussein's rule of more than three decades.
Newscore and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/02/us-military-hands-camp-victory-over-to-iraqis/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews
-
I agree with McCain.
McCain: Obama Deserves 'Scorn and Disdain' for Iraq Pullout
Wednesday, 14 Dec 2011 08:08 PM
By Newsmax Wires
Sen. John McCain, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said President Barack Obama deserves "scorn and disdain" for his decision to order complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by year's end.
"It is clear that this decision of a complete pullout of United States troops from Iraq was dictated by politics, and not our national security interests," the Arizona Republican said on Wednesday from the Senate floor. "I believe history will judge this president’s leadership with the scorn and disdain it deserves.”
McCain, who ran against Obama for the White House in 2008, famously remarked in that campaign that he would not object to maintaining a U.S. troop presence in the area for "a hundred years."
McCain also blasted the president for not giving credit where credit is due. Obama failed to acknowledge in a speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., on Wednesday that the end of the Iraq war had come about as a direct result of former President George Bush's surge strategy — a policy that Obama vehemently opposed as senator, McCain pointed out.
"All I will say is that, for three years, the president has been harvesting the successes of the very strategy that he consistently dismissed as a failure," McCain said . "I imagine this irony was not lost on a few of our troops at Fort Bragg today, most of whom deployed and fought as part of the surge."
McCain provided old quotes of then-senator and candidate Obama in which he called for a withdrawal from Iraq and said that that campaign promise has prompted Obama as president to lead from behind, without authority.
“The president never brought the full weight of his office to bear in shaping the politics and the events on the ground in Iraq so as to secure a residual presence of U.S. troops,” he said. “This left our commanders and our negotiators in Baghdad mostly trying to respond to events in Iraq, trying to shape events without the full influence of the American president behind them.”
McCain's comments came as signs increased that Obama is using the Iraq pullout, which many experts consider dangerous and destabilizing, as a re-election ploy to shore up his sagging liberal Democratic base.
Obama, who opposed the war all the way to the White House, can't remind people enough that he is the one ending it and getting every last troop home.
He is not just commander in chief intent on lauding the valor of the military. He is a president seeking re-election and soaking up every chance to make a promise kept.
During Obama's speech at Fort Bragg, a post that sent thousands of troops to Iraq and saw more than 200 of them die there, the president summoned glory and gravity. In a speech full of pride in American fighting forces, Obama declared to soldiers that the "war in Iraq will soon belong to history, and your service belongs to the ages."
If the thought sounded familiar, it was because Obama essentially has been declaring an end since the start of his term.
Every milestone allows him to reach all those voters who opposed the unpopular war, including liberals in his party, whose enthusiasm he must reignite to win a second term.
There was the speech in Camp Lejeune, N.C., way back in February 2009, when he said: "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."
When that mission ended, Obama held a rare Oval Office address to the nation to celebrate the moment and declare: "It's time to turn the page."
During the past two months, Obama has taken three more swings at it, all of them commanding the attention the White House wanted:
In October, from the press briefing room: "As promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year."
On Monday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at his side: "This is a historic moment. A war is ending."
On Wednesday to troops: "Iraq's future will be in the hands of its people. America's war in Iraq will be over."
He also made time this week to speak about Iraq to regional television stations serving military communities, most of them in states targeted by his re-election campaign.
Without question, the ending of a war is moment for any president to reflect with the country. Yet even Obama noted people have seen this one coming for a while.
Since George W. Bush was president, in fact.
Bush was the one who struck a deal with Iraq to set Dec. 31, 2011, as the final day of the war. Yet it was Obama who accelerated the end of the U.S. combat mission when he took office, shifted attention to Afghanistan, and decided to leave no troops behind in Iraq after this year.
The final U.S. forces will be out in days.
This, in essence, is Obama's mission accomplished: getting out of Iraq as promised under solid enough circumstances and making sure to remind voters that he did what he said.
It is harder to remember now, with joblessness dominating the presidential debate and souring the public mood, but it was not long ago that the Iraq war consumed about everything.
In a new Associated Press-GfK poll, about half of those surveyed called the Iraq war highly important to them. It placed lower in importance than all but one of 14 current issues.
"It's understandable that he's trying to bring it back to the forefront of the public consciousness," said Ole Holsti, a retired Duke University professor who has written a book about American public opinion of the Iraq war.
"From a purely domestic political viewpoint, this is something that the president can bank on — most Americans are eager to bring it to an end," he said. "I think after all this time, there's probably a kind of overriding sense of relief: 'This is when we'll have the boys home.'"
Obama's approval rating on handling the situation in Iraq has been above 50 percent since last fall. In the new AP-GfK poll, he has ticked up four points since October to 55 percent.
Twice now, Obama has delivered we're-ending-the-war speeches in North Carolina, a state he barely won in 2008 and that is integral to his re-election prospects.
This is hardly a moment of national unity. About every issue seems politically toxic now.
As troops leave Iraq, 77 percent of Democrats approve of Obama's handling of the war compared to 33 percent of Republicans, an enormous gap. Independents are in the middle.
Obama's challenge has been to get out of the war without leaving Iraq in mess, to be consistent in his opposition without undermining the military under his command.
Nearly 4,500 Americans have been killed in the war. More than 1.5 million Americans have served in Iraq. The toll stretches in all directions.
So Obama was effusive in heralding the troops and their families. With no mention of victory, he called their service toward a self-reliant Iraq an extraordinary achievement.
"Americans expect the valor of the troops to be lauded no matter what they thought of the war itself, and Obama is very sensitive to that," said Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University. "That's one big part of what he's doing."
The other parts, Jillson said, have been to check the box of his campaign promise kept, and to close out the war as best as possible.
"Saying the troops performed nobly is easy," Jillson said. "The more difficult task is to make the case that the resources were well expended and the future of Iraq looks bright."
Especially for a president who called the war dumb and rash before it even began.
Obama has, though, been offering pronouncements of better days ahead in Iraq. Bush used to talk of Iraq becoming a beacon of hope in a region desperate for it. For those who caught it, Obama this week sure sounded plenty similar, arguing that "a successful, democratic Iraq can be a model for the entire region."
But mainly, Obama's message has been that it's all over, on his terms, just like he said. Again and again.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-WarOver-Analysis/2011/12/14/id/421015
-
You are an idiot... It's not our fucking country.
What part of that do you not seem to get?
-
Trump was right - we should have taken the. Oil as repayment.