Obama Announces Complete Withdrawal of U.S. Forces From Iraq by End of 2011

[cavegal]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/21/obama-to-speak-about-iraq-troop-levels/

President Obama announced Friday that all U.S. forces will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2011.

"As promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year," Obama said. "After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over."

Obama spoke in the White House briefing room after completing a secure video conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The president said the two are in "full agreement" about how to move forward.

Obama's announcement would close off the possibility of maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq beyond a Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline set in 2008.

It would also mean that after eight years of war in Iraq, Obama would be making good on his promise to wind down the conflict.

[DumbAss Tanker]

This is the first shoe falling in the "This thing isn't going to end all that well after all" story.

[Chris_]

I thought the Iraqis had already decided this without Obama.

[TVDOC]

This is the first shoe falling in the "This thing isn't going to end all that well after all" story.

Yeah.....

Al Quds is just waiting to step into the "training" role that our troops are vacating........

Even money they'll be running the show within 24 months.

doc

[Gina]

He is certainly SETTING us up for something bad.

[DefiantSix]

He is certainly SETTING us up for something bad.

Glenn Beck has a good point:  his poll numbers are in the tank, and everybody's telling him that this is an immensely popular move.  So why then is he doing a Friday afternoon "document dump" with this announcement, just about guaranteeing that it'll see very little press coverage.

[Gina]

Glenn Beck has a good point:  his poll numbers are in the tank, and everybody's telling him that this is an immensely popular move.  So why then is he doing a Friday afternoon "document dump" with this announcement, just about guaranteeing that it'll see very little press coverage.

What do you think could be going on?  I am not that quick on this uptake

[DefiantSix]

What do you think could be going on?  I am not that quick on this uptake

I don't know what it means.  I just get real leary when somebody like Obama is trying this hard to get me to watch their right hand:  makes me wonder what he's planning on doing with his left.

[Gina]

I don't know what it means.  I just get real leary when somebody like Obama is trying this hard to get me to watch their right hand:  makes me wonder what he's planning on doing with his left.

great now I have that funny feeling in the pit of my stomach like before taking my test this morning 

[Akubra]

I thought the Iraqis had already decided this without Obama.

The media here tells us that Iraq would not agree to any troops staying on under the terms demanded by the US, i.e. immunity against prosecution.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Yeah.....

Al Quds is just waiting to step into the "training" role that our troops are vacating........

Even money they'll be running the show within 24 months.

doc

Well, they'll be training and equipping the Shi'ite militias, anyway.  Breakdown of the peace between the factional militias to follow by the Summer.

[cmypay]

I just hope that if/when the Middle East starts into a huge war with themselves that we stay out of it. I doubt it, but that is what I hope.

I also forsee an announcement cutting troop numbers in a BIG way

[DumbAss Tanker]

I also forsee an announcement cutting troop numbers in a BIG way

Already in the pipeline, I assure you.  I think it will go even deeper than the levels covered in the briefings I've heard so far, especially now that there is not going to be any substantial force left in Iraq, because whatever else you may think about it, it does reduce projected deployment/rotational requirements.

[thundley4]

Obama is playing to his base, and he needs them more than ever. I look for even more class warfare talk and demonizing of conservatives and Republicans.  Obama has the bully pulpit of the presidency, he doesn't need as much cash from the "evil rich" as he did before.

[RightCoast]

Honestly this is probably overdue. I fear for what will happen in Iraq, but they had more then 5 solid years to step up for themselves, enough American troops have shed blood over there.

[TVDOC]

I suppose the problem that I have with it is that I (and many others) envisioned Iraq as a strategic economic and military partner in the Middle East with a permanent American military presence, including air bases and supply depots to enable us to further stabilize the area, and facilitate the projection of US power abroad.

Iraq still has no air forces, and virtually no navy, therefore an opportunity exists for the US to continue to develop Iraq's capabilities and strengths to maintain both their sovereignty as well as the protection of other gulf states that are friendly to America, at the same time deterring those who are not (two of which notably border Iraq).  A win-win situation for both countries, as Iraq continues to benefit from the revenue spent to maintain such facilities and the civilian jobs that they create.......plus a market for American hardware and an entree for our commercial interests, not unlike South Korea.

It seems just a sad waste, after so much American blood and treasure has been spent to just pack up and walk away........however perhaps I'm a strategic thinker, and it's obvious that our president is not.......he's just fulfilling a campaign promise and solidifying his anti-military base.  A political decision having absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the geopolitical situation.

Unfortunately I suspect this action will ultimately lead to a much larger conflict in the area that will, by necessity involve the US........

doc

[RightCoast]

You may well be right Doc, I just can't see us continuing to lose arms, legs, and lives over there when our government can't work with their government to make us real allies. All we are now to Iraq is the point of the spear. 

[TVDOC]

You may well be right Doc, I just can't see us continuing to lose arms, legs, and lives over there when our government can't work with their government to make us real allies. All we are now to Iraq is the point of the spear.  

Based on what I've heard from an acquaintance in the US Embassy in Bagdad, the vast majority of Iraqi's (even those in Parliament) want us to stay........only Al Sadr and his Shi'ia don't, Al Sadr has the President's ear, and through him insisted on the caveat that US troops would be subject to local laws.  It should be noted that Al Sadr takes his orders from Iran (and is even now in Tehran studying to become an Ayatollah).  I will never understand why we didn't find a way for that bastard to have a fatal "accident" five years ago.

The Obama has made no real effort to negotiate an agreement for a continued US presence, other than very limited communications through the Embassy.  He doesn't consider it important.

I don't think that we are the "tip of the spear" there any longer........nor do I think we should be......just a presence.

I remain of the opinion that abandoning Iraq is a mistake that we will pay for again in the future, just like we did by not finishing the job in 1990......

doc

[RightCoast]

Based on what I've heard from an acquaintance in the US Embassy in Bagdad, the vast majority of Iraqi's (even those in Parliament) want us to stay........only Al Sadr and his Shi'ia don't, Al Sadr has the President's ear, and through him insisted on the caveat that US troops would be subject to local laws.  It should be noted that Al Sadr takes his orders from Iran (and is even now in Tehran studying to become an Ayatollah).  I will never understand why we didn't find a way for that bastard to have a fatal "accident" five years ago.

The Obama has made no real effort to negotiate an agreement for a continued US presence, other than very limited communications through the Embassy.  He doesn't consider it important.

I don't think that we are the "tip of the spear" there any longer........nor do I think we should be......just a presence.

I remain of the opinion that abandoning Iraq is a mistake that we will pay for again in the future, just like we did by not finishing the job in 1990......

doc

IMO the US government is incapable of getting its head out of its ass to fix it, under those circumstances our troops should not be in harms way. It is long past time to put this to bed. I hope they can handle it, but I don't think we should just leave our troops there forever without an actual statesman to negotiate terms. Between barack and Billary it's no wonder they can't come to an agreement.

[FreeBorn]

IMO the US government is incapable of getting its head out of its ass to fix it, under those circumstances our troops should not be in harms way. It is long past time to put this to bed. I hope they can handle it, but I don't think we should just leave our troops there forever without an actual statesman to negotiate terms. Between barack and Billary it's no wonder they can't come to an agreement.

Aye aye! Couldn't agree more. Afghanistan is the same way. We have seen again and again and again how this war is being armchair quarterbacked and hobbled by hacks in Washington instead of being conducted by the generals in the field as it should be.
If you're going to send your military to war then do so properly. Give your generals full writ and stay the hell out of the way. Do NOT impose restrictions on them and ignore their pleas. Once you have given your generals an objective and turned them loose it is imperative to keep the three B's and nothing but the three B's flowing to them (Beans, Bullets and Bandaids). The fourth B, bullsh!t, needs to stay in Washington. Sending the fourth B to the battlefield is a recipe for disaster.

The time to bring the troops home should rightly be dictated by the commanders in the field according to the military situation in country, NOT the empty suit back in Washington according to his needs as his political success ebbs and flows.
Didn't we learn all of this in our Vietnam experience? Our troops on the field did their jobs magnificently and dominated the enemy, our troops did NOT lose the Vietnam war in the field. As a matter of fact they had for all intents and purposes obliterated the VC and had the NVA on the ropes. Our politicians threw Vietnam away, threw our troops under the bus and crushed our national spirit for their own immediate political fortunes. Our troops did not lose it on the battlefield.

The fact that the majority of our Iraqi allies want us to stay on indicates that the military situation has not yet reached a state that they feel they can manage without us. Just because THE ONE declared combat operations to be "over with" and media coverage of our troops in the field in Iraq ceased with that political declaration doesn't mean our troops haven't been in firefights there every day since. Pulling out now will benefit only the 0bama photo op PR machine and mark the beginning of the Iraqi civil war. Truth be told the Iraqi civil war has been raging among them since the day we invaded but it's not PC to recognize that fact.

Afghanistan is a bit different. Like Somalia it is at best a lawless region historically, a cesspool that never had a future and never will. It's not worth fighting for. Any notions of "nation building" in Afghanistan are ridiculous. That's like saying you intend to wade a hundred yards out into a swamp hip deep with a shovel in your hands and declare that you are going to shovel the place dry. It can't be done. Ostensibly we went in there to "get those bastards back for 9/11". I believe we have done that. Bin Laden's pelt has been hung on the fence. Our commanders are confident that Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as a military organization has been reduced to a shambles. Running around the place chasing these Neanderthals in the hills and caves could go on until the end of time and for what? To trade our best for their worst? F*ck it. Being in bed with that thug Karzai while his brother runs the world heroin trade isn't doing us any good either. When you wallow with pigs you can only come up muddy.
We have been there a decade and have them in disarray. That's as good as it gets, period.
I think we should pull our boys out of there and in the future if they get uppity again then go in with a large scale raid to scatter them once more and GTFO. No reason to stay and hold anything. There will never be a Mt. Suribachi flag raising moment in Afghanistan.

[Doc Savage]

I have an idea for an exit strategy

[TVDOC]

Well....both of you make excellent points, and I can't say honestly that I disagree with the bulk of them.  However, since I've lived and worked in the region, and have a number of acquaintances there with whom I continually keep in contact, I have only one rebuttal........backed up by their first hand wisdom:

Iran is the problem........

Iranians are not Arabs (Semites), and the theocracy in Iran is going to start a real shooting war........it's not a question of if, but a question of when........

We are already engaging Iranian proxies in Israel, Indonesia, South America, Central America, as well as other Middle Eastern countries.  It's not really open for debate......Iranians just this past week attempted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador right here on American soil.....

The Shi'a in Iran believe that war is the only way to propagate Islam.......they believe that as fundamentally as Christians believe that Christ is the Redeemer.  Diplomacy and multilateral discussions or sanctions are not going to change that.......ever.......after initiating hostilities with one of their neighbors, Iran's first official act will be to close the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off 60% of the world's supply of oil.

Will you be happy to sit here, with all of our troops at home, when our economy is totally crushed, and we are paying  $50 per gallon of gas (when we can get it), our homes are cold, and our industries are grinding to a halt?

Therefore, we are left with two choices......fight them over there, or fight them here.......leaving them alone, and walking away looks good on paper, makes us feel good, but it is extremely risky.

If we abandon a strong military presence in the Middle East, sooner or later Iran is going to drop a nuke on Israel, and further, Pakistan's government is devolving toward theocracy as well, and will ultimately look more and more like that they will enter into a nuclear exchange with our close friends in India.......this will ignite a conflagration that will involve the US,  whether we like it or not.

Therefore strategically, would we rather have some military assets retained in the region to both act as a deterrant, as well as be available to respond quickly should hostilities erupt.......or would we rather sit on our collective asses, and when they erupt be in a position where it will require six months to marshall the forces to accomplish anything........??

Obama will likely be a one term president, and we need to elect a replacement that has a very large metallic set of gonads........I don't think we can assume that the job is done, and take our ball home without placing American interests at significant jeopardy.

I understand that you see this as a futile effort, but respectfully.....it isn't.....our future is very definitely at stake here.

YMMV

doc

[FreeBorn]

You are definitely hitting all the right nails right on the head, TVDOC. 30 years ago the Arabs across the mid east didn't have much cohesion. Israel could take care of business when it needed to in response to individual localized threats like their Lebanon campaign of 1982 but things are changing. Iran most definitely is the main tumor from whence all these other cancers are metastasizing as of late, these "Arab spring" uprisings. Iran has been working consistently and effectively for decades to bring this about throughout the region. The cohesion they lacked in the past has been steadily gelling and we are now seeing the effects of it.

The lame stream media would have the American public believe that this "Arab spring" is a popular uprising of the people in a bid to throw off the yoke of tyranny and live free, blah blah blah. That couldn't be further from the truth. What is really happening is leaders of these countries viewed by Tehran as being too westernized and not Islamic enough like Mubarak and Khaddafy are being replaced with regimes that are ushering in strict sharia law. The entire region is being brought in line with a hardline Islamofascist doctrine. In effect borders are being erased and one vast sharia empire is emerging.

We most definitely need to maintain a large ready force in the region but I don't see the merit in maintaining continuous ground operations in Afghanistan. We should maintain sizable bases in the region and play whack-a-mole wherever threats emerge, jump-in-kick-ass-get-out. Iraq isn't going to allow us to keep bases once we finally do exit the bulk of our forces from there. Northeast India would be a better place for large U.S. bases in the region and a large buildup of U.S. troops in Israel like we have in S. Korea wouldn't be a bad idea either. IMHO our troops in Germany should be in Israel instead.

I think you are absolutely right about Iran fomenting a large scale war and it will be sooner than later which could certainly go nuclear. What worries me more is something like a suitcase nuke in a shipping container in someplace like the port of New York.

[dutch508]

Won on the field of battle. Lost in the White House.

[FreeBorn]

I suppose the problem that I have with it is that I (and many others) envisioned Iraq as a strategic economic and military partner in the Middle East with a permanent American military presence, including air bases and supply depots to enable us to further stabilize the area, and facilitate the projection of US power abroad.

Iraq still has no air forces, and virtually no navy, therefore an opportunity exists for the US to continue to develop Iraq's capabilities and strengths to maintain both their sovereignty as well as the protection of other gulf states that are friendly to America, at the same time deterring those who are not (two of which notably border Iraq).  A win-win situation for both countries, as Iraq continues to benefit from the revenue spent to maintain such facilities and the civilian jobs that they create.......plus a market for American hardware and an entree for our commercial interests, not unlike South Korea.

It seems just a sad waste, after so much American blood and treasure has been spent to just pack up and walk away........however perhaps I'm a strategic thinker, and it's obvious that our president is not.......he's just fulfilling a campaign promise and solidifying his anti-military base.  A political decision having absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the geopolitical situation.

Unfortunately I suspect this action will ultimately lead to a much larger conflict in the area that will, by necessity involve the US........

doc

Precisely.

I get the feeling that the present government in Baghdad isn't really our friend. They are simply biding their time until we leave and then the mask will come off revealing the true puppet masters, Tehran. That's why they are holding to not allowing U.S. bases to remain in country.