Full Iraq War pull out by end of year 2011

[dietcokewithlemon]

"Vietnam also had the US leaving and the Saigon getting taken by the North.

Iraq does have a new government and it is not controlled by those we would consider the enemy. "


Better check the facts. Iran pretty much controls Iraq and its influence is growing. Or has Iran suddenly become our friend?

[ironbite]

No but I'd like to see your proof that Iran controls Iraq.

[lighthorseman]

So Barack Obama, keeping another promise, tells us that all the combat troops will be home for Christmas and says, quite clearly, that it's up to the Iraqis to decide whether or not they want an Iraq or not. He can run now as a wartime president — killer of terrorists, master of the over-the-horizon thunderbolt war, and as the man who brought the troops home. It is not Hope. It is not Change. But it is something. There will be a great ongoing celebration, which will make Mitt Romney look like ten kinds of fool, and that will be the best thing about it. The troops who are coming home are coming home to nine-percent unemployment. They will be coming home to thousands of individual tragedies — mountainous debt, foreclosure, a staggering panoply of physical and mental injuries — compounded by an enforced paralysis of national solutions created by a conservative "movement" bent on cheap power and a kind of mad Darwinian social policy that would leave all these good people to fend for themselves.

The United States is not leaving Iraq. We are going to be represented there by an embassy the size of Vatican City, and by some "independent contractors" in the employ of the State Department. (What could possibly go wrong there?) The test will come on the day when some Iraqi kills one of those contractors, or fires a missile into the fortress embassy. It will come if the various factions in Iraq start savaging each other again, or if Iran makes a feint toward the border, or if Muqtada al-Sadr — the real winner in all of this — begins truly acting like a national leader and/or strongman, thereby energizing the Present Danger types in this country again.

Voices will rise here for re-engagement, for regaining "everything we won" in Iraq, for "keeping faith" with the war dead by "protecting what they fought for." Will we actually be able to resist that? Will we be able to tell the politicians who need a war every few years to fortify themselves with the blood of other people's children? If it happens before the election, how will Barack Obama jump? (Mitt Romney, if he wins the nomination, will almost surely say something utterly dishonest and self-serving, and possibly reckless with the lives of people he'd ordinarily be putting out of their jobs in some distant factory.) If Obama doesn't take the bait, will the country rally to that position, or will it make the same mistakes of abandoned self-government that it has made at all the crucial moments throughout this eight-year crime?

www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/troops-leaving-iraq-2011-6523455

Full article is worth a read.

[Armand Tanzarian]

I find it amusing that, of almost all the news articles and comments (including this thread, but forgive me if I missed someone's comment), the REAL reason the US is withdrawing is not stated.

The US said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like US military help.

But US-Iraqi talks broke down because the two sides were unable to agree on granting legal immunity for a small contingent of American troops who would have stayed in place to help train Iraqi forces.

Throughout the discussions, Iraqi leaders had adamantly refused to give US troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, while US military officials had refused to stay without it.

Moreover, Iraq's leaders have been split over whether they wanted US forces to stay.

Basically, the USA wanted to keep the soldiers there. They just couldn't guarantee their safety through diplomatic immunity, hence the pullout (considering the abuses and wanton killings ala Abu Ghraib, you can see why diplomatic immunity was not something the Iraqis want to give willingly). The US pulled out almost entirely because the Iraqis wanted them out, and succeeded.

Specifically, the faction I've seen referred to as the Muqtada al-Sadr division have been the loudest voices for American pullout, but even Nouri al-Maliki has increasingly campaigned on anti-Americanism. The country the US "liberated", in the end, gave them the boot. Of all the things, Barack Obama should not be getting any credit for whatever "pullout" this was supposed to be.

[lighthorseman]

I assume this means the PMCs are no longer considered immune from criminal and civil prosecution there either?

[Oriet]

Thanks for that info on it, Armand. I find it kinda funny that the troops are being withdrawn because of failed diplomacy, when normally it would be the other way around.

[Armand Tanzarian]

Oct 24, 2011 9:08:15 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

I assume this means the PMCs are no longer considered immune from criminal and civil prosecution there either?

That I have no idea. There's no details on the actual agreement as well as preexisting agreements so far beyond what's leaked. The first question is, are the contractors in Iraq post-pullout there at the behest and pay of the American government or the Iraq government? The al-Maliki faction may trumpet anti-Americanism but secretly they still need the contractors to build things they need to advance their own interests. If they learned anything from Bush its the cronyism; the Iraqis just do it with less accountability.

Oriet: There are some things over the years that really irk me about coverage, almost entirely due to the discrepancy between American media and foreign media. This is why I tend to be an unabashed cheerleader for sources like al-Jazeera and the Guardian. Each has their faults, but taken together they reveal a wholly different picture of the world (Although it must be noted the 2nd article I linked to was the WSJ, so American media is not all bad).

[ltfred]

Oct 24, 2011 9:56:23 GMT -5 Armand Tanzarian said:

The al-Maliki faction may trumpet anti-Americanism but secretly they still need the contractors to build things they need to advance their own interests.

No contractor has ever built anything in Iraq, at least not for less than 10,000 times it's value. The Iraqis can rebuild their country themselves, if the Americans would only get out of the way.

I guarantee you that the companies the Iraqis hire to rebuild their country won't be the ones Bush did.

Oct 24, 2011 8:53:53 GMT -5 Armand Tanzarian said:

even Nouri al-Maliki has increasingly campaigned on anti-Americanism. The country the US "liberated", in the end, gave them the boot.

Wouldn't you? A country came in, blew away a million of your countrymen, ruined every major piece of infastructure, rebuilt nothing, drove around blowing up people at checkpoints and on highways, ran your country with a high hand and an iron fist and then refused to bugger off for years.

[lighthorseman]

Oct 24, 2011 16:41:50 GMT -5 ltfred said:

Oct 24, 2011 9:56:23 GMT -5 Armand Tanzarian said:

The al-Maliki faction may trumpet anti-Americanism but secretly they still need the contractors to build things they need to advance their own interests.

No contractor has ever built anything in Iraq, at least not for less than 10,000 times it's value. The Iraqis can rebuild their country themselves, if the Americans would only get out of the way.

I guarantee you that the companies the Iraqis hire to rebuild their country won't be the ones Bush did.

Oct 24, 2011 8:53:53 GMT -5 Armand Tanzarian said:

even Nouri al-Maliki has increasingly campaigned on anti-Americanism. The country the US "liberated", in the end, gave them the boot.

Wouldn't you? A country came in, blew away a million of your countrymen, ruined every major piece of infastructure, rebuilt nothing, drove around blowing up people at checkpoints and on highways, ran your country with a high hand and an iron fist and then refused to bugger off for years.

*headdesk*

[Armand Tanzarian]

Oct 24, 2011 16:41:50 GMT -5 ltfred said:

No contractor has ever built anything in Iraq, at least not for less than 10,000 times it's value. The Iraqis can rebuild their country themselves, if the Americans would only get out of the way.

Notice I never said that al-Maliki wants to "rebuild the country". I specifically said "build things to advance their own interests". al-Maliki has interests, as do the Muqtada division. We're not 100% clear what they are but we can be fairly sure what they want and what the country needs may not be the same.