Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraqhttp://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iraq-us-troops/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Quote
(CNN) -- President Barack Obama said Friday America's long war in Iraq will end by the end of the year and announced that almost all U.S. troops will come home.
"After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraqi will be over, Obama said. "The coming months will be a season of homecomings. Our troops in Iraq will definitely be home for the holidays."
Of the 39,000 troops in Iraq, only about 150, a negligible force, will remain to assist in arms sales.
Obama said the end of the war was a campaign pledge he has made good on. Obama spoke with Iraqi President Nuri al-Maliki in a video conference Friday and said both nations were
The new partnership with Iraq will be "strong and enduring," Obama said.
A current Status of Force Agreement called for U.S. forces to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 but lengthy negotiations had given rise to the expectation that an American presence would continue beyond that date.
The United States had expected that some of the roughly 40,000 Americans in Iraq would remain there to aid in training and security.
But the talks broke down over the prickly issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq, a senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the discussions told CNN this month.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.
But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.
The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks' release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as initially reported by the U.S. military.
U.S. troops have already started the drawdown -- a brigade from Fort Bliss, Texas, that was originally scheduled to be among the very last to leave Iraq was being pulled out of the country months ahead of its planned departure, military officials told CNN last week.
You mean they're not gonna turn around and send them to Syria or Pakistan? ;)
How long until we have to send them back to Iraq?
Quote from: St. Auggie on October 21, 2011, 01:18:56 PM
How long until we have to send them back to Iraq?
removing the troops is like removing a band aid from an unhealed wound. just gonna make it worse. Iraq will soon become a breeding ground for radical Islamist terrorists. It will be an issue the next president will have to address.
1. I'll believe it when I see it.
2. The pre-election timing is pretty gross, even by modern political standards.
Quote from: KenFSU on October 21, 2011, 03:06:08 PM
1. I'll believe it when I see it.
2. The pre-election timing is pretty gross, even by modern political standards.
Agree Obama should have had them running for the exits in his inaugural speech.
I fear that this is a political decision, not a military one. We should leave some intelligence/strike/assault abilities in the country. The Iraqi government has not shown the ability to control the countryside yet, and Iraq is strategically essential in the area.
If we have to take the same ground a third time it will result (again) from poor decisions/planning on the part of our Chief Executive.
Bring them home.
The reasons don't matter to me.
I'll offer Kudos to our President on this one. GWB could have used this same political posturing PRE-IRAQ.
Food for thought.
Quote from: buckethead on October 21, 2011, 10:16:28 PM
Bring them home.
The reasons don't matter to me.
I'll offer Kudos to our President on this one. GWB could have used this same political posturing PRE-IRAQ.
Food for thought.
smh
Quote from: stephenc on October 21, 2011, 10:26:56 PM
Quote from: buckethead on October 21, 2011, 10:16:28 PM
Bring them home.
The reasons don't matter to me.
I'll offer Kudos to our President on this one. GWB could have used this same political posturing PRE-IRAQ.
Food for thought.
smh
Shake it as much as you like. Its yours.
Having voted for Bush...twice... I can confidently proclaim his shortcomings as I see them. Invading Iraq was a shortcoming of his administration. WMD.
Make no mistake... They hate us for our freedom.
That, and WMD.
The war in Iraq is over? Good riddance.
One optional war down, one to go.
Quote from: stephendare on October 22, 2011, 08:57:31 AM
Quote from: NotNow on October 21, 2011, 10:08:56 PM
I fear that this is a political decision, not a military one. We should leave some intelligence/strike/assault abilities in the country. The Iraqi government has not shown the ability to control the countryside yet, and Iraq is strategically essential in the area.
If we have to take the same ground a third time it will result (again) from poor decisions/planning on the part of our Chief Executive.
Just in case Saddaam's WMDs show up, right NN?
There are a lot of bad things that could show up. Some of them are there now, just waiting for us to leave. With a fresh supply of hatred and weapons right next door, I think that there is plenty to worry about in Iraq.
I can assure you of one thing, the title of the thread is wrong. It is not over. American interests, and American citizens are at risk. It is my belief that they would be safer with the aforementioned capabilities remaining inside Iraq.
Quote from: NotNow on October 22, 2011, 12:18:45 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 22, 2011, 11:58:39 AM
One optional war down, one to go.
Aren't you forgetting one?
Yes he did forget one. The War on Drugs; the longest, most expensive, deadliest and least effective optional war we have ever fought.
BTW, the Iraqis don't want us there anymore and refused to give any soldiers left in the country immunity from prosecution by any authority in Iraq. Off a Taliban and get hauled into local court on murder charges? Don't think so.
DW, you should start a thread for the subject. But the marketing term "war on drugs" doesn't put that activity in the issues here.
Quote from: NotNow on October 22, 2011, 04:01:10 PM
DW, you should start a thread for the subject. But the marketing term "war on drugs" doesn't put that activity in the issues here.
I know, but just couldn't resist the temptation to be a smartass.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 23, 2011, 09:50:55 AM
Quote from: NotNow on October 22, 2011, 12:18:45 PM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on October 22, 2011, 11:58:39 AM
One optional war down, one to go.
Aren't you forgetting one?
Yes, Libya. My bad.
No, I meant Central Africa:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release October 14, 2011
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
October 14, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
For more than two decades, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa. The LRA continues to commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan that have a disproportionate impact on regional security. Since 2008, the United States has supported regional military efforts to pursue the LRA and protect local communities. Even with some limited U.S. assistance, however, regional military efforts have thus far been unsuccessful in removing LRA leader Joseph Kony or his top commanders from the battlefield. In the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, Public Law 111-172, enacted May 24, 2010, the Congress also expressed support for increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability.
In furtherance of the Congress's stated policy, I have authorized a small number of combat-equipped U.S. forces to deploy to central Africa to provide assistance to regional forces that are working toward the removal of Joseph Kony from the battlefield. I believe that deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.
On October 12, the initial team of U.S. military personnel with appropriate combat equipment deployed to Uganda. During the next month, additional forces will deploy, including a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications, and logistics personnel.
The total number of U.S. military personnel deploying for this mission is approximately 100. These forces will act as advisors to partner forces that have the goal of removing from the battlefield Joseph Kony and other senior leadership of the LRA. Our forces will provide information, advice, and assistance to select partner nation forces. Subject to the approval of each respective host nation, elements of these U.S. forces will deploy into Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The support provided by U.S. forces will enhance regional efforts against the LRA. However, although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense. All appropriate precautions have been taken to ensure the safety of U.S. military personnel during their deployment.
I have directed this deployment, which is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. I am making this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.
Sincerely,
BARACK OBAMA
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 23, 2011, 12:16:48 PM
Quote from: NotNow on October 22, 2011, 04:01:10 PM
DW, you should start a thread for the subject. But the marketing term "war on drugs" doesn't put that activity in the issues here.
I know, but just couldn't resist the temptation to be a smartass.
:)
Political slight of hand?http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=1&hp
QuoteMacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. â€" The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
You make the call.
Quote from: buckethead on October 30, 2011, 10:09:12 AM
Political slight of hand?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?_r=1&hp
QuoteMacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. â€" The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
You make the call.
Of course it's a political slight of hand. America would never fully pull out of that area with some contingency plans. We have bases in Diego Garcia, you bet we'll have Iraq surrounded.