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)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that Obamacare is neither socialized nor centralized, right?
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Yea, because the Cato institute is a bastion of independent and non-partisan fact analysis. Next you'll tell me Gartner provides reports that are impartial and unbiased.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget to mention that you didn't read it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And it's a piece of propaganda. They redefine socialism in order to conclude that Obama supports socialized healthcare.
I could claim in a white paper that the Cato Institute is a fascist think-tank, as long as I redefine fascism for the purpose of my white paper.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is just the first step. As for now, though, it remains definitively not socialized.
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.
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: (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 c
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: (Score:3, Informative)
My credentials: Three years of management in the NHS. I can promise you that the New Labour government did everything it could behind the scenes to privatise health care in the UK without actually having to publically admit i
Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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: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: (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 h
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
August 31st? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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:About time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:About time. (Score:5, Funny)
We leave then they run out of beer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:About time. (Score:5, Funny)
What is the US exist strategy for Germany?
We've decided to allow it.
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: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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
Big difference for a Soldier serving in Germany and a Soldier serving in Iraq: Gate guards at U.S. bases in Germany make sure you're not armed before letting you on the base. Gate guards at U.S. bases in Iraq make sure you ARE armed (with full combat ammo load) before letting you OFF the base.
Re:About time. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:About time. (Score:5, Informative)
In Britain, "anti-terrorism" was indeed regular police work for over 20 years. The police handling of the Arndale Manchester bombing (3000 lbs truck bomb in a crowded city center) was one of the most spectacular evacuations in living history and although I tend to be rather critical of the way the police generally handle things, this was damn-near superhuman effort on their part and they deserve to be proud for saving the lives of every single person there. (There were a few minor injuries to those who stood right up against the barrier to watch the bomb go off, which surely would have deserved a Good Try from the Darwin Awards at the time, but that's it.)
In other situations, an Armed Response Unit might be called in, but that's still police. The SAS were called in once, to storm the Iranian Embassy, but even then the SAS report to the Home Office directly and are not strictly part of the regular army. Even if you did consider them, though, that's one operation out of how many hundreds?
I'm not sure who is in charge of the bomb disposal units, but that's such a tiny part of the whole operation that it really doesn't matter.
(I won't get into the source of funding for the terrorists, as many Slashdotters live in that country and might object.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The SAS were called in once, to storm the Iranian Embassy, but even then the SAS report to the Home Office directly and are not strictly part of the regular army.
The Iranian embassy is not technically on British soil, just as every embassy in every country is considered to stand on their own soil and not the soil of the hosting country. That being the case, the use of police would not have been justified (police not having international jurisdiction). A military force to rescue hostages would be entirely in keeping with the separation of police and military duties.
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.
damned liberals (Score:5, Funny)
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:damned liberals (Score:5, Informative)
Heck, we still have significant numbers of troops in West Germany who do an excellent job of preventing Nazi insurgencies and invasions by the USSR.
Re:damned liberals (Score:5, Informative)
The US will be there for decades.
Germany surrendered in May 1945, the US is still there.
Japan surrendered in August 1945, the US is still there.
Korean cease fire started in July 1953, the US is still there.
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: (Score:3)
Acording to the MIA conspiracy theorists, yes, the US is indeed still there. Tilling fields, perhaps, but still there.
Re:damned liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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), ju
This is great news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is great news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
What about Afghanistan (Score:4, 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.
So... what's the purpose of the 50,000 remaining? (Score:3, Insightful)
Target practice?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (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!
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: (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: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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, yes, but 500,000 soldiers and support personnel would come back to this country unemployed. Better to keep them employed abroad than to:
1) Hike unemployment above 10% (politically damaging)
2) Pay them on unemployment to do nothing. (Where they don't make defense contractors any money) (economically damaging to families and industry)
3) Shut down the military industrial complex that allows their deployment possible (and hike unemployment above 12%)
They aren't going to Afghanistan anyway. They are headed
Re: (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 t
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.
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:iraq ii was unfinished business (Score:5, Informative)
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
Bush 41 had build a true multinational coalition including many Muslim middle eastern nations, and in negotiating the coalition, had agreed not to change the regime in Iraq, only to liberate Kuwait. Pushing to Baghdad would have been a stab in the back to our allies at the time. And it was believed that after the war, Saddam might fall from power on his own, or at least would have been far less powerful / more cooperative than he ended up being.
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.
Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
winners all... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:End of violence? (Score:5, Funny)
>> You announce the date and pull out sooner. When the little shits come out of hiding you nail them.
Is this a military tactic, or a birth control method?
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.
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:End of violence? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what... The solution is for the US to stay forever?
Re:End of violence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:End of violence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There were French forces under the collaborationist Vichy government in North Africa fighting along side Italian troops when the US and UK invaded Morocco. I don't believe they tried very hard, though.
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:End of violence? (Score:4, Informative)
How long have we maintained 40,000 troops in Korea?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's my understanding that AQiI is pretty much dead, now, and JAM has devolved into civil disobedience now that al-Sadr is in self-imposed exile. If there are any insurgent groups left, they will be local, disorganized, and without the kind of tacit police protection JAM had up until 2005. They will also have no popular support whatsoever.
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.
Re:Eight Killed Today (Score:5, Interesting)
How many people were killed due to gang related violence in Chicago this week?
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/cii/...g27_to_200.pdf [state.il.us] Here is the Illinois State Police report for 2007. They haven't released the 2008 report as of yet. Crime was up in 2008, but has dropped back down for 2009 so far..... Cook County: 80 murders for 2,455,801 people - 3.25/100,000 Chicago City: 443 murders for 2,832,854 people - 15.64/100,000 Total: 554 murders for 5,288,655 people
Source: http://www.city-data.com/forum/chicago/667826-where-can-you-find-cook-county.html [city-data.com]
Re: (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 atti
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seems fairly obvious to me. No new offensive missions and no patrols, just chill on base in 100% defense mode as you gradually rotate home.
Probably a lot of boot polishing, weapons cleaning, paperwork catch up time, PMCS the vehicles, guard duty, extra formations and inspections...
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.
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: (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: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:Why would they need to attack on that date? (Score:5, Funny)
Jesus Christ. Not only are you trying to play the race card, you're trying to play it in a game of marbles.
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.
Score one for the American Memory (Score:3)
As everyone knows, before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he was a real sweetheart. Gassing Kurds, brutally oppressing any competing political parties, fighting the Iranians. And just how did he hold on to power for so long?
Back in the 60s, the Iraqi government was getting real friendly with the Soviet Union, which was bad news. Our installed dictator in Iran was keeping the oil flowing, but Iraq had a lot more of it and was right next door. So we supported a young man named Saddam Hussein and has Ba'athist
Re:The reason this is on Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Surge (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
November 2 minus August 31 is two days?
Let me guess . . . you just graduated from high school in Texas?
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: (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.
What next war? (Score:3, Informative)
How little you know.
1) The US isn't in a position to bomb anything at the moment.
2) Israel will never bomb Iran. Israel knows that Iran is not a threat and has not really fought a war of aggression and won, they know this. Defensive wars give Israel the upper hand. Unlike the US, Israeli military leaders will not follow a failed strategy just because they started it.
The strange thing about the Jewish (Israel) and Persian (Iran) people is that they get o