Obama pulling troops out of Iraq

[GostHacked]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-to-announce-complete-drawdown-of-u-s-troops-from-iraq-by-years-end/

President Obama today announced that the United States will pull all its troop from Iraq by the end of the year, as ABC News first reported.

“The rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,” the president said. “After nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”

So what's in Iraq's future? The invasion force that created the current state of affairs in Iraq is leaving. Iraq is no safer today than it was when this war began. Suicide bombings and attacks still happen on a weekly basis there and with large numbers of casualties.

Another question would be .. where are they going next?

[Moonlight Graham]

From the OP article:

About 4,000-5,000 security contractors will remain in Iraq, the White House said.

So US gov't contracted military presence remains, but the admin has the ability to say no official US military troops are there so they can make themselves look perdy.

Also, Obama says that the troops are coming home because the Iraqi gov't wouldn't grant the US troops immunity if they stayed. Who in their right might would grant them immunity?

Well, at least Obama lived up to a promise, sort of.

[Guest Derek L]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-to-announce-complete-drawdown-of-u-s-troops-from-iraq-by-years-end/

So what's in Iraq's future? The invasion force that created the current state of affairs in Iraq is leaving. Iraq is no safer today than it was when this war began. Suicide bombings and attacks still happen on a weekly basis there and with large numbers of casualties.

Another question would be .. where are they going next?

From the article:

About 4,000-5,000 security contractors will remain in Iraq, the White House said.

And the reasoning behind the pull out

The Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq expires at the end of the year. The Iraqis wanted U.S. troops to stay but would not give them immunity, a key demand of the administration.

As for where next…….home. In today’s fiscal climate, and the public’s opposition to expeditionary warfare, I doubt you’ll see any Western nation’s politicians deploy troops into a foreign country, on the same scale as Iraq and Afghanistan, for a generation or more………..No more peacemaking or peacekeeping……..campaigns like Libya will be the norm for the foreseeable future………What’s old is new again………Goodbye nation building, and hello “gunboat diplomacy and the occasional WOG bashing”.

[Moonbox]

I think they had to leave. No good was being done there really. Obama seems to understand that US foreign policy was a disaster under the last few administrations and he's trying to do away with the perception (however correct it may be) of Imperial USA. The days of unilateral US world-policing are over under Obama. Expect US intervention over the next few years to be far less publicized, muted and as often as possible indirect.

[Moonlight Graham]

As for where next…….home. In today’s fiscal climate, and the public’s opposition to expeditionary warfare, I doubt you’ll see any Western nation’s politicians deploy troops into a foreign country, on the same scale as Iraq and Afghanistan, for a generation or more………..No more peacemaking or peacekeeping……..campaigns like Libya will be the norm for the foreseeable future………What’s old is new again………Goodbye nation building, and hello “gunboat diplomacy and the occasional WOG bashing”.

I doubt that, it's impossible to predict the future. What happens if, say, a terrorist attack sponsored by the Syrian gov't is committed against the US? Or Iran attacks a neighbour for whatever reason?

Also, you're forgetting that war is big business in the US and the military-industrial complex has massive power infiltrating virtually every congressional district and federal gov department in the country.

[GostHacked]

So US gov't contracted military presence remains, but the admin has the ability to say no official US military troops are there so they can make themselves look perdy.

There were cases of people who did a tour in Iraq with the military went back to Iraq as a contractor (like Blackwater) because the money was good. So this war cost the USA more money than it should have. Not only that, the contractors did have immunity of some kind, more than the troops themselves. Part of the reason we saw videos from Iraq of Blackwater people crusing down the street randomly firing on other vehicles as they traveled down roads.

Also, Obama says that the troops are coming home because the Iraqi gov't wouldn't grant the US troops immunity if they stayed. Who in their right might would grant them immunity?

Immunity means they would not be held responsible for their actions, even if they purposefully screwed up.

Well, at least Obama lived up to a promise, sort of.

I guess this is a 'win' for him.

[punked]

Mission Accomplished. For real this time. Cleaning up Bush's mess is still tough Obama is trying though.

[Guest Derek L]

I doubt that, it's impossible to predict the future. What happens if, say, a terrorist attack sponsored by the Syrian gov't is committed against the US? Or Iran attacks a neighbour for whatever reason?

Also, you're forgetting that war is big business in the US and the military-industrial complex has massive power infiltrating virtually every congressional district and federal gov department in the country.

In both the examples you cite, a military response like Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn’t be done/needed/or possible………In Syria I could see a campaign very similar to the one in Libya…….air strikes and a blockade (Turkey has already implemented an embargo) to aid in the already demonstrating populace……I’ll give it happening within six months……..As for Iran, I’d predict an isolated air strike(s) by the Israelis if need be……….

And I’m not forgetting about the “war business”, precision munitions and the platforms to deliver them require a great deal of investment.

[bush_cheney2004]

Mission Accomplished. For real this time. Cleaning up Bush's mess is still tough Obama is trying though.

The terms were negotiated by the Bush administration before leaving office...as in "2011". Nice try...

[jacee]

Looks like Bush won.

In Rebuilding Iraq’s Oil Industry, U.S. Subcontractors Hold Sway

Mr. Munton estimated that about half of the $150 billion the international majors are expected to invest at Iraqi oil fields over the next decade would go to drilling subcontractors — most of it to the big four operators, which all have ties to the Texas oil industry. Halliburton and Baker Hughes are based in Houston, as is the drilling unit of Schlumberger, which is based in Paris. Weatherford, though now incorporated in Switzerland, was founded in Texas and still has big operations there.

Edited October 21, 2011 by jacee

[Topaz]

You know some wars aren't worth doing. These US soldiers must be exhausted mentally and physically and many will need medical help for the rest of their lives, reminds me of the Nam soldiers. No doubt, when the economies are right again, these guys will be back in Iran and Syria, the Middle-East hasn't seen the last of these guys. Hopefully, they be back for Christmas.

[GostHacked]

You know some wars aren't worth doing. These US soldiers must be exhausted mentally and physically and many will need medical help for the rest of their lives, reminds me of the Nam soldiers. No doubt, when the economies are right again, these guys will be back in Iran and Syria, the Middle-East hasn't seen the last of these guys. Hopefully, they be back for Christmas.

Interesting to note that more people in the military supports and donates to Ron Paul over every other candidate. Yes they are tired of these needless, and in some cases endless wars.

[Shady]

Interesting to note that more people in the military supports and donates to Ron Paul over every other candidate. Yes they are tired of these needless, and in some cases endless wars.

How do you know that?

[bush_cheney2004]

How do you know that?

Wishful thinking.

[maple_leafs182]

How do you know that?

http://thecaseforronpaul.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/ron-paul-leads-in-military-donations-2011-q3-to-republican-candidates/

[Moonlight Graham]

In both the examples you cite, a military response like Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn’t be done/needed/or possible………In Syria I could see a campaign very similar to the one in Libya…….air strikes and a blockade (Turkey has already implemented an embargo) to aid in the already demonstrating populace……I’ll give it happening within six months……..As for Iran, I’d predict an isolated air strike(s) by the Israelis if need be……….

My point is that you can't really predict the future. There may be situations that arise, ie: some country invading another, re: Iraq vs Kuwait, that might demand a major US or NATO ground response.

But I also see your view, and think it would be prudent financially, politically, and even security-wise to avoid any major ground operations as possible, and do more of a Libya-style operation (airstrikes, covert ground support of locals).

[Guest Derek L]

My point is that you can't really predict the future. There may be situations that arise, ie: some country invading another, re: Iraq vs Kuwait, that might demand a major US or NATO ground response.

But I also see your view, and think it would be prudent financially, politically, and even security-wise to avoid any major ground operations as possible, and do more of a Libya-style operation (airstrikes, covert ground support of locals).

Though the possibility of a “major war” is always present, and events change very rapidly, I still stand by my assumption that western governments have used (right or wrong) up all their political capital during the last ten years on “wars of choice” (i.e. interventions on the auspices of others).

I don’t doubt that eventually we’ll see a “third World War” and discussed it in this thread:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19588

But I feel the timing of said WW III will be at least a decade out, as further pressures build on the planet’s supplies of water and/or energy………until then, I’m certain we’ll continue to see “bushfires” like Libya, but when the inevitable “big one” happens, all these other conflicts seen over the last six decades will pale in comparison.

[Shady]

http://thecaseforronpaul.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/ron-paul-leads-in-military-donations-2011-q3-to-republican-candidates/

And where is the case for ron paul website getting their information? I'm curious.

[BubberMiley]

And where is the case for ron paul website getting their information? I'm curious.

Uh...perhaps it would be from the source cited in the link? It says the Federal Election Commission.

[maple_leafs182]

Uh...perhaps it would be from the source cited in the link? It says the Federal Election Commission.

What he said

[Bonam]

But I feel the timing of said WW III will be at least a decade out, as further pressures build on the planet’s supplies of water and/or energy………until then, I’m certain we’ll continue to see “bushfires” like Libya, but when the inevitable “big one” happens, all these other conflicts seen over the last six decades will pale in comparison.

I think the presence of large arsenals of nuclear weapons among all the world's major powers (that could thrust the world into a WWIII) pretty much guarantee that WWIII isn't happening. You'll notice that never in history have two significantly nuclear armed powers gone into a serious direct conflict with each other (the only exception is the Kargil "war", but it was little more than a skirmish). And if WWIII did happen, it'd mean the near extinction of the species.

[Guest Derek L]

I think the presence of large arsenals of nuclear weapons among all the world's major powers (that could thrust the world into a WWIII) pretty much guarantee that WWIII isn't happening. You'll notice that never in history have two significantly nuclear armed powers gone into a serious direct conflict with each other (the only exception is the Kargil "war", but it was little more than a skirmish). And if WWIII did happen, it'd mean the near extinction of the species.

To counter that line of thinking, in the decades to come, there will only be finite resources for an ever expanding global population……..some countries, likely armed with nuclear weapons, will be left standing when the preverbal music stops………..The world, and the civilizations that populate it, have never faced this type of struggle……..

And for a technical standpoint, the United States alone tested in the 50s more nuclear warheads than China, Pakistan and India are believed to have……

And I ask you this……When other world nations are curtailing their defence spending, why are these Asian powers expanding theirs........

Many have claimed that we’ve seen the end to war……..

Only the dead have seen the end of war. ~Plato

[Bonam]

To counter that line of thinking, in the decades to come, there will only be finite resources for an ever expanding global population……..some countries, likely armed with nuclear weapons, will be left standing when the preverbal music stops………..The world, and the civilizations that populate it, have never faced this type of struggle……..

The finite resources leading to catastrophic collapse is a shortsighted argument that ignores the reality of technological progress. We are constantly accessing resources that we never before thought to harness. We have tapped only the tiniest fraction of the energy available to us. And with energy, almost anything else can be produced.

And I ask you this……When other world nations are curtailing their defence spending, why are these Asian powers expanding theirs........

Who is curtailing their defense spending? The US has significantly increased its spending over the last decade. Even Canada has boosted its spending. Russia, coming out of the post-Soviet union dump, has been trying to rebuild its military and has been increasing spending. Middle-eastern nations are increasing spending. Asian economies are becoming more powerful on the world stage and along with bigger economies often comes a bigger investment in the military.

Many have claimed that we’ve seen the end to war……..

We've seen the end to a certain type of war. This has happened many times in the past. The kind of war where people line up in neat lines and shoot each other has seen its end. The type of war where people sit in trenches for years has seen its end. And the type of war where great powers clash with thousands of tanks and millions of men has also seen its end. That does not mean we have seen an end to war. There is still war, such as the wars we are prosecuting today... Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. And developing and underdeveloped nations still engage in wars that cost the lives of millions.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Who is curtailing their defense spending? The US has significantly increased its spending over the last decade. Even Canada has boosted its spending.

Both true (Canada's has more than doubled, and is up 60% accounting for inflation), but Europe is curtaining defence spending.

[Bonam]

Both true (Canada's has more than doubled, and is up 60% accounting for inflation), but Europe is curtaining defence spending.

Yes, I suppose Europe is.