Obama Sets End of Iraq Combat For August 31st 659
eldavojohn writes "President Barack Obama has announced that on August 31st the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq, although 50,000 troops will remain until the end of 2011. It's been a long seven-and-a-half years, with no guarantee of this announcement actually signifying the end of violence. Pundits are already speculating on whether or not this withdrawal speech is 'Mission Accomplished 2.' It's possibly the most significant confirmation of and commitment to a withdrawal the world will hear from the United States in Iraq."
Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
About time. (Score:5, Insightful)
The war, over there, has been over for years. Now, they are just working as cops. Not the type of job the military was ever cut out to do.
Re:End of violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary. You announce the date and pull out sooner. When the little shits come out of hiding you nail them.
The reason this is on Slashdot (Score:1, Insightful)
The president used a microphone to make the announcement. Microphones are technology.
Re:End of violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:End of violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
You make it seem as if Iraq is going to be completely undefended or something. In reality, there's the Iraqi military and police forces, right?
Let's have a little bit of faith in them, okay.
This is great news (Score:4, Insightful)
What about Afghanistan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:About freakin' time (Score:5, Insightful)
We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
You mean when Saddam invaded Kuwait? We've 'been there' since that time. Just the level of troops and mission changed.
So... what's the purpose of the 50,000 remaining? (Score:3, Insightful)
Target practice?
Eight Killed Today (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? It guarantees that the few remaining insurgent groups will prepare for the date, and then attack with whatever they have left.
That was the criticism in the article based on two car bombs and a drive-by killing eight in Iraq today [google.com] -- the day of this announcement. I guess a better question should have been "will Iraqi security forces be able to contain the unavoidable violence following this withdrawal?"
That's why you *don't have a specific date* nor do you release your plans to the enemy.
Or perhaps you gamble and show the world that the situation is under control by releasing your "plans" of withdrawal showing that those now in charge are very capable hands. Otherwise what do you do? Sit there and then just magically disappear one day? And when that happens, you think you're not in the same scenario you just mentioned? No matter how you cut it, it's a delicate situation.
Surge (Score:2, Insightful)
So does this means the libs are admitting that the surge worked?
Re:End of violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't declaring the specific date to leave, they are planning on the specific date to stop fighting. Basically on August 31st they are going to turn everything over to the Iraqi government (who at this point can probably handle anything the insurgents throw at it), but they are going to stick around, just in case. That way if the insurgents do throw everything at them, there'll still be troops around to help deal with it if they really need help. If they can handle themselves for a year, it is a sign we can safely remove the troops. The Iraqis still won't be alone, we can give them air superiority almost instantly if any insurgency gets too bad, and we can easily re-conquer the country within a month if necessary.
Obama did well on this one. Let's give him credit.
iraq ii was unfinished business (Score:4, Insightful)
if bush i in iraq i had decided to push on to baghdad and topple saddam in the early 1990s after racing across the desert unimpeded, then the world would have seen that as justified
however, the political fear of americans coming home in bodybags was too much, so they turned around and left saddam in power. kuwait was liberated, saddam was cowed, end of story... not
of course, the shiites who revolted under the false impression or false covert promise of american support were massacred. and of course, the tragedy is saddam was removed when war hawks in the usa sensed the political will finally existed after 9/11 to finish the job. not that 9/11 had anything to do with saddam hussein, but it had everything to do with agendas and the willpower to get them done. the world sensed this massive disconnect and the seedy trumped up lies, and therefore did not support the americans at all the second time around
and it was done at the price of probably many more american, and iraqi, body bags, many years later, under bush ii in iraq ii
so colin powell and assorted numbnuts: you screwed up in 1991. you should have gone all the way. if you start a job, finish it completely. leaving it half done meant a problem that festered
yes, you had the highest and noblest of intentions in mind, but war is messy and has nothing to do with nobility and good intentions, and you need to take some ugly jobs to completion, or don't start the ugly job at all
Re:damned liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirate Party. Though not for any political ideals. I just really like rum. And besides, who else could possibly save us from the ninjas?
Re:damned liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
I served on the Korean peninsula under Clinton. We never leave anywhere. Ever.
-Peter
Re:So... what's the purpose of the 50,000 remainin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about Afghanistan (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuke what? What structures and populations there are could easily (and more importantly more cheaply) could be dealt with using conventional weapons. The problem with that? The structures and populations that live in them aren't our enemy. It's the whackos out in the boonies hiding in caves (or other countries) that blow up our troops and their fellow countrymen. Low target density and the terrain is naturally hardened. And there's the little fact you can't actually use nukes these days.
Re:End of violence? (Score:3, Insightful)
Violence isn't the problem, extricating US troops is the problem.
It didn't matter when Saddam was killing Iraqis, and it won't matter when we hand off to the locals again. The insurgents "attacking" /= "winning", and UNLESS Iraqis buy their country with their own blood sacrifice it won't mean anything to them. There is obviously much more tribal violence to come, but that's normal in that part of the world.
It's called "self-actualization" and there is nothing much Caucasian Colonials can do about it.
Re:rofl (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, because obviously the presence of troops means that combat operations are underway.
Oh, wait...
Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surge (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:damned liberals (Score:2, Insightful)
It would be like us staying in some small Asia country for nearly 15 years. *cough* kenedy *cough *lbj* *cough* nixon got us out *cough*.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well the US have been in Europe for 60+ years doing exactly that. I suppose you could say the same thing.
Re:Surge (Score:4, Insightful)
So does this means the libs are admitting that the surge worked?
If by 'surge' you mean paying the Sunnis not to fight us and upping the air strikes by a factor of five so we could mostly disengage the ground troops.
But the media lost interest in it all and the public outcry over the ongoing casualties faded away, so the pro-war party got what it wanted.
Re:About time. (Score:1, Insightful)
The war, over there, has been over for years. Now, they are just working as cops.
Do you really feel that car bombs [google.com] are just police work? Let me try to rephrase it for people that are living comfortably: if two car bombs went off in New York city and killed eight, would you just shrug that off as normal everyday police work?
Some of this stuff -- stuff that even happened today -- requires the intelligence collection and expertise of people trained to do more than "just work as cops." I would suggest you are selling our troops short in their ongoing work at preventing and disarming these kinds of attacks. I think we're all hoping that the Iraqi security forces meet or exceed the current work going on in a country that occasionally shows signs of instability and something more opposed to the US than everyday criminals as we know them.
Re:damned liberals (Score:2, Insightful)
By request and/or treaty obligation, in all 3 situations.
Re:don't rejoice just yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure about that? In 2009, defense accounted for 23% of the federal budget.
Yep. Half of that is about $400 billion dollars. That would be way more than a shot in the arm for the economy. And once you start paying down the debt, then the interest on said debt goes down, too. And keep in mind those are 'official' numbers, which are widely known to be complete and utter bullshit (in that they're lower than what is reported).
More easy ideas: stop it with the 'war on drugs': it's an abject failure, and is ridiculously expensive. Legalize and tax marijuana the same as alcohol. You then get: tax money for the sales of marijuana (and more money from the increased sales of junk food, most likely :), billions less spent on the war on drugs, and billions less spent incarcerating marijuana users and marijuana-only dealers. By legalizing marijuana, you'll also take a great deal of power away from the drug cartels, and reduce violence.
Similar thing for prostitution.
Re:End of violence? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what... The solution is for the US to stay forever?
Re:About time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and the war crimes trials start when? (Score:5, Insightful)
Starting a war (even a war with collateral damage) is not a war crime; the idea of a war crime is simply to state that one's legal means to wage war is not unlimited. Deportation of entire populations for deprivation and/or genocide, for instance, is right out. To compare US conduct in Iraq to such things is histrionic nonsense.
Re:This is great news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends. Is this Law & Order or CSI? I'm pretty sure a car bomb goes off on CSI now and then.
I mean, technically it is "police work" on the same scale that FBI operations are police work and not combat operations. That doesn't mean you can't have different scales of police work. The problem is that soldiers are generally trained for one and not for the other - raiding and holding locations by force aren't always directly analogous to finding out who set off a car bomb and dismantling his organization.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a cynical attempt to try to do something to try to stop the spiraling poll numbers for him and the Democrats. Yet we're still leaving troops there--commitment is "changing," not ending--and the war in Afghanistan is bloodier than ever (worse than it was under Bush) so it's not really going to do anything. It's also an attempt to distract people from the ethics trials of two Democrats in the House.
Some pundits are predicting the biggest GOP majority since 1946. We'll see. All I know is, this Democrat supermajority fucking sucks, obsessing over socialized healthcare for a year instead of jobs. And now, our buddies in the UK are decentralizing their healthcare because the quality of their socialized healthcare sucks. Obama's whole first year was a pointless waste.
It's like the last two years have been an example of how idealistic liberalism fails in practice. Obama flies around the world apologizing to everyone for our existence to match the image of the enlightened intellectual, yet people in the rest of the world continue to hate us and are openly making nukes. Spends money on stimulus packages that do little except increase the debt, furthering our financial troubles. Constantly goes back on promises made during his campaign. And on and on.
Most people, when times are tough, tighten their belts and lower their expenses to save money until things get better. Why Obama chose to expand government and increase spending in a recession is disappointing but not surprising.
Re:damned liberals (Score:3, Insightful)
Germany, Japan, and South Korea are all pikers when it comes to where we've had troops, and for how long.
We still have Marines and sailors at Guantanamo Bay over 100 years after the end of the Spanish-American War. Ditto with the Philippines. Using those two measuring sticks, there's no reason to think we'll ever leave Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, once we have a foothold there. Not passing judgment on whether this is a good idea or not (there are good arguments to be made on both sides of that one), just stating the reality of the situation.
Re:About time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the US have been in Europe for 60+ years doing exactly that. I suppose you could say the same thing.
Conducting counter-insurgency operations in a nation with an unstable government? No, they're not.
Re:End of violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Soldiers grow back, forests don't.
You've never planted a tree? Seriously, you put a seedling in the ground when it is small, and years later you come back, and it is actually bigger. Plant a soldier and come back in a few years, and all you have is the same small stone with the name of someone's kid on it.
Re:Finally (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What about Afghanistan (Score:0, Insightful)
Best bang for the buck: Nuke Iran.
Nope. Carpet bomb Pakistan. They're biting America hard in the ass - taking billions of dollars in aid on the one hand and cultivating the Taliban on the other. Afghanistan can be won only if the Pakis are given a hard kick on their backside.
Re:Eight Killed Today (Score:3, Insightful)
How many people were killed due to gang related violence in Chicago this week?
Are you suggesting a likely destination for the 90,000 soldiers being pulled out of Iraq? ;-)
Re:End of violence? (Score:1, Insightful)
When did the US defeat France post WW1? I seem to recall them liberating France from Germany during WW2, but not the US defeating the French.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that Obamacare is neither socialized nor centralized, right?
Re:End of violence? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
So Obama campaigned on bush's plan? Bush had talked about doing this type of thing.
And a year and a half into a presidency, he declares an end to combat missions, but 50k troops remain?
Obama has control of the troops, he doesn't have to go through congress. He could simply order them out.
As i recall, he had a timeline of 3 months initially and that kept growing as the campaign progressed.
Of course, I hope i'm wrong and he does get us out of iraq. But we're still fucking around in afghanistan.
Re:End of violence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is also stupid. Our troops should be defending our country. And with our troops in places like South Korea, we could very well be doing more harm than good.
we should not have military bases in 130 different countries.
Re:damned liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:End of violence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama did well on this one. Let's give him credit.
Obama did well? Obama opposed everything that allowed Iraq to be in this position now. Obama had no plan for Iraq except a campaign promise (and like all of his campaign promises, it comes with a expiration date). Bush, and Patraus more so, deserves the credit here. They put all Iraq on this path, all Obama did was follow the blueprint given to him by Bush. A plan that called for the removal of troops in late 2010. Obama had no plan of his own
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
As a conservative I'd like to point out your argument about the Afghanistan war becoming bloodier under Obama and this surge of troops is the same argument many liberals used during the Iraq Surge. Guess what, when you send more troops in to take and hold ground and fight the enemy more troops get hurt. But that doesn't mean the strategy is a failure. It's a war, if you want to win people end up dying before that happens.
It's absofuckinglutely ridiculous that the vehement liberals razed Petraeus for the surge under the Bush administration and now the right wingers want to make the same mistake and go AGAINST the commanders on the ground just so they can bash a Dem President. Keep your political bashing out of war strategy, the lives of our troops and future of those countries is more important than scoring political points.
Germany != Iraq (Score:4, Insightful)
Tim S-
Your pithy comment might look good on a bumper sticker or t-shirt, but it's not really this same thing and we both know it. It's about as dumb as the arguments from the right "when will we stop occupying (Chicago or other city) as there are more deaths there in (time period) than Iraq.
Germany is a strategic ally and fellow NATO member. Simply having operational bases in a country is not the same as occupation. The US does not patrol the streets of Germany, nor do they perform operational missions within Germany's borders aside from training simulations. Assignment in Germany is normally a cushy job and one many soldiers hope for.
US presence in Germany was scaled back following the re-unification of the two Germanys. Early in the Clinton administration early discharge was offered to many US soldiers as a scaling back "peace dividend" (I remember this personally because my wife took the opportunity to return to civilian life). Many troops who were stationed in Germany were moved to Saudi Arabia.
Re:iraq ii was unfinished business (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, no, "finishing the job" in 1991 meant pretty much the same thing as it did in 2003: rid Iraq of Saddam's partisans and build up a good government bureaucracy, deal with the Sunni versus Shiite versus Kurd problem, and deal with Iran. Powell was correct that this is something America doesn't actually want to do either in 1991 and 2003, though it was disappointing that he could not hold his ground as Secretary of State. George W. Bush was completely wrong in assuming that he wouldn't have to do any of that, and therefore didn't even have a plan.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
Oops. Moderated you wrong and can't undo it so I'm posting to wipe that out. Sorry.
This is more or less the plan that Bush put in place, and was essentially mandated by the Iraqi government. They have a legitimate (or at least "recognized") government there, and we're no longer an invading army. We have permission, under a Status of Forces agreement.
So the timing is completely unsurprising, and Obama's doing nothing that wasn't basically mandated, but it is what he wanted all along. McCain would have had to do the same, though probably less willingly.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget to mention that you didn't read it.
Re:Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like the last two years have been an example of how idealistic liberalism fails in practice. Obama flies around the world apologizing to everyone for our existence to match the image of the enlightened intellectual, yet people in the rest of the world continue to hate us and are openly making nukes. Spends money on stimulus packages that do little except increase the debt, furthering our financial troubles. Constantly goes back on promises made during his campaign. And on and on.
Yet somehow, he's managed to keep you safe.
There's been a distinct lack of planes crashing into skyscrapers or the Pentagon in the last 2 years. We've gone from losing 750,000 jobs per month as we were in late 2008 to adding jobs (if still too few). We've gone from the US economy contracting (which is the definition of "recession") to growing a few percent. We've even had a reduction in the number of illegals crossing the Southern border in the US (as well as a continuing reduction in crime along the border).
Instead of starting two new wars while giving the top 2 percent tax cuts, we're in the process of ending at least one of those wars, and giving tax cuts to the other 98% of the population (at about $80k, my family's federal income taxes have gone down since Jan of 2009 when the President was inaugurated).
And that health care reform bill? Do you know that the past three WSJ polls have shown that Americans are starting to like it. The last WSJ poll showed that 61 percent of Americans are in favor of the health care reform legislation and 37% are opposed.
If you'd gone all in on the stock market on the day Obama was inaugurated, you'd have realized about a 40% increase in your money. Corporations are reporting bigger profits than any time in the past 5 years.
So go ahead and measure for the drapes in the Speaker of the House's office. I heard the GOP is already raising funds by selling meetings with "Speaker" John Boehner. But make sure you actually take the House back, because this is your high-water mark. If the GOP doesn't take back Congress now, with all the hootin' and hollerin' about how "America is repudiating liberalism", Republicans will tear each other apart, with the country-club types blaming the tea parties and vice versa. If even after the completely horrible first 2 years of the Obama administration, the President's approval still hovers around 46-48% there's no possible way he's going to be beaten in 2012. Remember GW Bush left office with a 28% approval rating. You would think from the way right-wing tools like bonch talk that Obama would be lucky to have a 20% approval rating, yet he still hangs in at 45+% despite >9% unemployment rates. That ought to tell you something.
Most people still remember what happened from 2000-2006 when the Republicans ran every branch of government: We're living in the aftermath, though slowly crawling out.
You might be in for a big surprise in November,.bonch.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Iraq and Afghanistan are different situations. In Afghanistan, there is actual territory being lost and won. Having extra military forces to hold our position against the Taleban advances -- yes, actual advances by the enemy -- is very useful. In Iraq, the whole country is "ours" and the enemy lives there and attacks entirely from within. There, extra troops are mostly just extra targets for surprise attacks. There's no hard line, like nothing happening in Iraq happens in Afghanistan, but for certain there are no cases in Iraq of a definable enemy swooping in and taking a town that we had previously won.
So to me, it makes a lot more sense to be critical of the "surge" in Iraq vs the "surge" in Afghanistan. Especially considering how neglected Afghanistan had been for so many years.
However, the most important and effective -- yet least talked about -- aspect of Petraeus' Iraqi surge was the attempts to engage the insurgents in general and in particular the Sunnis, basically buying them off and convincing them that Al Qaeda in Iraq was our mutual enemy (with AQ conveniently helping us out in this regard by helping Sunnis get killed). This and other efforts actually gave them the sense that they had some role in and stake in the future of Iraq. Convincing the Sunnis to stop fighting us through non-violent means did far more to decrease the violence than the extra troops did. It was a great, the kind that could have made a real difference if deployed early on in Iraq.
With Petraeus in charge, I'm hoping that in addition to the actually-helpful-cus-it's-actually-kinda-like-a-real-war troop increases, there will also be much more behind-the-scenes dealing with Taleban factions that may come around to our side. There's been talk of this in the news, and hopefully there will be real effects.
Where the hell was Petraeus when we invaded these countries?!
Re:don't rejoice just yet (Score:3, Insightful)
And once you start paying down the debt...
The United States will never, ever, pay down its debt. Ever. It will not ever pay it back. Not because it's not possible, but because those in control choose not to. It's the exact same thing as running up a credit card because you're about to file bankruptcy.
The US will continue to print money (I mean the federal reserve will buy treasuries), until the cows come home. And one day, when every golden egg has finally been squeezed out of the golden goose, our goose will be cooked. And men in expensive tailored suits will leave our country, with bulging pockets, to head for greener pastures. And we'll be left to rot.
I think I'll start making protection payments to the warlord of my county.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:don't rejoice just yet (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not especially a fan of either pot or hookers, but it seems like the system you've described is working well in Amsterdam. Unless I'm missing something, society hasn't collapsed or been taken over by hooligans. I could understand the reluctance if no one else had tried it, but come on. The experiment is working.
Well, they've decriminalized pot, not legalized it, but that doesn't get them any tax money to help on enforcement, which is kinda silly. Prostitution, however, IS legal and taxed there.
The problem is that since we in the U.S. haven't legalized it, we have to deal with all the health and crime effects (of both pot and prostitution). They're happening now, even though they're illegal, so if we legalize it (not just decriminalize), we can improve the situation, since we'll never get rid of either.
It's like the gays in the military argument - they're ALREADY serving, and it's not a problem.
Re:damned liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
This tired meme really needs to be done away with.
We maintain limited forces in Japan due to Treaty Obligations.
Korea, we are still there under UN mandate though the size of the force has been slashed in the last 10 years as the RoK Army has stood up.
Germany, we've slowly been moving forces out of there since 1991. I'm sure we'd leave if their government actually asked us too, but considering the benefits to having us there it is unlikely they will.
Re:End of violence? (Score:1, Insightful)
We still have troops in England, and the war of Independence ended in the 1780's
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to save the lives of our troops? Pull them out. Right now. It's a little tough for Afghanis to kill them if they aren't in-country. Right now, they're dying for exactly one major reason: To benefit corporate interests here. They're not protecting us; and they're doing damned little for anyone in Afghanistan. They are the lever arm for the transfer of taxes from the citizens to the corporations. Nothing more. And yes, they are dying for that.
The future of those countries? What about the future of Sudan? Are we fighting for those people? No, of course we're not -- we're letting them go to hell in a hand-basket. Because its not convenient to fight there. Don't fool yourself into thinking that we're in Afghanistan "for the future of Afghanistan." We're there to engage in war where we can make an adequate excuse to the naive: chasing down the "terr'ists." It's not about saving Afghani citizens from themselves. If it was, we'd be in Sudan, actually we would have been in Sudan first. Not to mention a host of other countries.
Speaking (mostly) as a conservative myself, if we had actually wanted to solve the problem we would have:
The 9/11 terrorists were primarily Saudi; they were primarily funded by Saudis; they were entirely Islamic in creed and goals; and the one place we did absolutely nothing? Saudi Arabia. Instead, we attacked a secular country - Iraq - for the most transparent of reasons, to control the oil, a goal we did in fact achieve. If you want to know why we're at war, follow the money. It'll tell you, every time. It had *zero* to do with 9/11, except as a sop to the naive. Afghanistan... the same.
In the meantime, the Saudis have religious fanatic Islamites running all over the country like cockroaches, as an actual enforcement arm of the Sharia; women are treated as property (and girls are treated worse.) And again, we're not in there, nor are we going to be, helping the people or straightening out the system the way they like to make you think we "are" in Afghanistan.
We are not engaged in any just wars. And despite the injury it would do to the military industrial complex, we should get the fuck out of both Iraq and Afghanistan yesterday at the latest. If we were moral and ethical about the use of our military, that is. But we're not.
winners all... (Score:4, Insightful)
Screw the bill, face reality (Score:1, Insightful)
Health care costs are going to go up a lot.
They're already going up yearly without any government assistance.
Someone has to pay for all of those people who will not pay for their health care.
We already do. This isn't new and it wasn't started with the recent health care bill.
That is what the added cost the rest of us are paying is being used for.
Actually, the added cost is mostly to cover bullshit administrative tasks. A point that gets ignored by most of the public despite it being one of the most critical points against the bill.
Forcing everyone to have health care only hurts those people that are working.
Meh, hurts the employers a lot more than the employees. (Note: One can argue that hurts the employees as consequence. Fair enough point, but that still puts the initial pain on the employer.)
So much for no taxes or tax increases on the middle class (or those making less then $250k, er $200k, er .. what ever the amount is now).
Wake up to reality: People promising you tax cuts are full of shit and do not have your best interest in mind. They want your vote and they don't give two shits with respect to how much you'll benefit from a 1% tax cut. More importantly, these tools don't give a damn about balancing our debt problem; that's what you should care about in the end, because long term debt will determine tax rates when debt and Social Security payouts end up driving the government's "income" dispersal.
Re:Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Taking people's income to pay for government services is exactly what every civilization has done since we moved out of the caves.
Were we still living in caves in 1913? Because that's when the 16th amendment was ratified and the income tax established.
I could have sworn I'd seen pictures of people living in houses, apartments, etc. in the 19th century, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.