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."
don't rejoice just yet (Score:5, Interesting)
This probably just means we can now devote more of those troops to Afghanistan. *sigh*
I wonder how much we're spending on all those troops in Germany, South Korea and Japan? Bring all the troops home from everywhere, cut the military budget in half, and we'd have no economic woes, and still have a gigantic military.
Re:don't rejoice just yet (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure about that? In 2009, defense accounted for 23% of the federal budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png [wikipedia.org]
Re:End of violence? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think those are the guys who the insurgents keep blowing up, right?
Since 2005, according to the icasualties.org website, there's been 3078 American casualties and 8286 ISF casualties.
While I mourn for the loss of life, it seems to be like the ISF aren't going to be able to handle the load alone. Not that the U.S. should bear this load alone (and we haven't), but it seems like those folks still need help.
I can only imagine that after the U.S. leaves (and other countries will probably follow, soon), Iraq is going to be the center of out-of-control violence like we've not seen over there.
Re:End of violence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Eight Killed Today (Score:5, Interesting)
How many people were killed due to gang related violence in Chicago this week?
Re:Preparing for the next war? (Score:3, Interesting)
Iran had one card to play in Iraq: al-Sadr. They played that card, and lost. Al-Sadr's political power now resides solely with Iran, where he now lives. I think you can expect as much outrage in Iraq over an invasion of Iran as you would expect from Egypt, Jordan, or the gulf states: public outrage coupled with private intelligence sharing with the US.
Re:End of violence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So... what's the purpose of the 50,000 remainin (Score:5, Interesting)
Iraq's oil production capabilities are around $20B/year. We're spending $300B/year on the war. There literally isn't enough oil in the ground there to pay us back for the last 7.5 years, and it would take a century even if they tried. Can we please do some basic math and stop the stupid "it's all about oil" line of attack - it makes you look like an idiot.
Re:What about Afghanistan (Score:1, Interesting)
Obama supporters, by and large, were opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but in support of the mission in Afghanistan. Obama promised to pull out of Iraq, because they had no business being there. He did not promise to pull out of Afghanistan, because they do have business being there.
So what's your problem with this, exactly? He's doing what he said he'd do, and what the voters who elected him want him to do, on both counts.
Re:End of violence? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have trained the Iraqi security forces (military and civilian) and they are pretty much not trainable by western standards. You have grown men/working professionals who don't know their right from their left. You spend one week trying to teach them military drill that takes the average 8th grader 20 minutes to master. Add a loaded rifle and an "Insha Allah" attitude, and you only make everything worse.
Granted, they have pretty severe brain-drain in that country. All the smart ones left years ago (in the 80s, then again in 1990, then yet again in the 2000s). If security ever improves, I have several friends and colleagues that would go back. The problem is, security won't improve without the likes of them returning and bringing their advanced degrees back to their homeland. It's a total "chicken-or-the-egg" conundrum.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
yah but i find it very interesting that an election is right around the corner its more like he plained it to be this way
So what you're saying is... you're distrustful of America having a president who can actually plan more than a year ahead of time?
Isn't that a minimum standard we should be, if not proud of, appreciative of?
Re:Eight Killed Today (Score:3, Interesting)
How many people were killed due to sectarian violence in India last month? or Pakistan?
How many people will killed due to drug violence in Ciudad Juarez?
How many drive-bys were there in LA last month?
There will be violence in Iraq just like there is violence in other coutrys throughout the world. But the organized insurgant violence is gone. Now its the equivalent of you local gangs.
A few years ago when I would debate with my liberal friends about declare victory in Iraq and leaving (which was there attitude), I told them we won't be doing that. We will have in Iraq maintaining peace (rather then stationed at a regional base) until they are no longer needed. Slowly and surely Iraqi forces would develop the skill and competence to take over the job that US troops were doing and eventually US troops would just not be used. That's what I told them then, and they were very skeptical, but that's whats happened since.
Re:don't rejoice just yet (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The deficit is four times that. [bloomberg.com]
So until you cut another $1.1 trillion dollars the debt will continue rising, as will interest payments. Especially given interest rates are at historic lows. What happens when the world realizes we do not have the economic growth to pay this back? Someone will blink first.
While halving the military budget will be a wonderful start, it's just that.
As for the War on Drugs [drugsense.org] that runs about $60B a year. I'd love to see that go as well, but even if we look at profits from taxation and reduction of incarceration we're still not close to eliminating our deficits, much less our debt.
We need across the board freezes and across the board cuts and across the board tax rises. This will never fly. We had some decent choices ten or twenty years ago, now we have none. And everyone will want to make the other guy pay first. I don't see any solutions but ultimately hyper-inflating our way out.
Maybe not this year or next, but it will happen, count on it.
Re:So... what's the purpose of the 50,000 remainin (Score:3, Interesting)
Your calculation is wrong.
You assume $20B/year - $300B/year = $-280B/year
This is how the people running the war see it.
$20B/year + $300B/year (in cost plus contracts) = $320B/year = War oil is much better than regular oil!
Re:This is great news (Score:3, Interesting)
It does seem counterintuitive that, if you have a war, and one side goes home and has a sandwich, there will be less violence. Sociologists will be arguing about that one for years.
Re:Germany != Iraq (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe we will have bases in Iraq to watch over
the Middle East/SWA till we find another source
of power to replace our need for oil.
Tim S.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
Rachel Maddow made some interesting points on her week in Afghanistan a few weeks back. Some things I hadn't heard or read elsewhere.
1) The distribution of wealth is nonexistent in Afghanistan. All the war money is making a few Afghan nationals wealthy. There's a great clip of her walking with Richard Engel outside of these huge gaudy mansions. The mansions were all built by folks who got rich off of the war. Yet the streets outside them are unpaved, and there are trash heaps everywhere and open sewers. Government services are nonexistent even in this neighborhood full of mini-castles.
2) Although the war has dragged on, and we haven't made much progress since 2002 / 2003ish, much of the blame may lie in the fact that the U.S. was distracted by, and had vital resources diverted to Iraq. Much more progress in training the Afghans has apparently been made in the past year than the previous five years. Lots of mistakes were made in the prior years, in both training, counterinsurgency strategy, and general winning of hearts and minds.
The biggest question behind the second point is "is it too late now?". Let's assume for a minute that the folks Maddow talked to are right. We now have the secret sauce that eluded us for years under bush. We now know what to do in Afghanistan, where as before, we just hadn't figured it out yet. If we could go back in time and tell ourselves this plan in 2002, I'm sure this would be helpful. But that's not the case. We now have to implement this plan, not under a blank slate as we had in 2002, but in a country that's been occupied by us for 8+ years now. With all the bitterness and resentment that comes from all the mistakes we made in the past.
If we have the secret formula, can it work, or has the public opinion of the Afghan population turned so far as to be irreversible?
There's one more interesting thing, also from Richard Engel on Maddow's program. This is an exchange from October 9, 2009:
Re:Finally (Score:2, Interesting)
Did you miss the part where most people don't like the government taking out money and spending it?
We agree that there are essential services that need central authority. However, 80 percent or more of the government's spending can be eliminated and the tax money saved in in our pockets where it belongs. And if you don't think you are paying enough taxes, then simply check the box at the bottom of the return and donate some more to the federal government. Most state's have that box too, so go all out.