Obama to confirm plan for US troop withdrawal from Iraq

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

US President Barack Obama is to confirm the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq by the end of August.

Some 50,000 of 65,000 US troops currently in Iraq are set to remain until the end of 2011 to advise Iraqi forces and protect US interests.

Mr Obama is to make the announcement in a speech to disabled veterans in Atlanta, Georgia.

It comes amid a dispute between the US and Baghdad over the latest casualty numbers in Iraq.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10839342

[Myrina]

1. 'all combat troops'

... what about the rest of the troops? And what about the Halliburton and XE contractors (mercenaries) who's companies are raking in billions of 'military' dollars?

:shrug:

[dmallind]

2. All combat troops is all he promised

Perhaps there is something we should do to advise Iraq and protect US interests there? Or is there nothin to do in Iraq at all?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saigon68]

60. He's taking over from the Chimp running the train

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. This is a bullshit move ---

that keeps 50k troops in country doing the every same work the "combat troops" ere doing, just under another title. Vet groups clued us in months ago that this was the plan.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46264

WASHINGTON, Mar 25, 2009 (IPS) - Despite President Barack Obama’s statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months," a number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), which have been the basic U.S. Army combat unit in Iraq for six years, will remain in Iraq after that date under a new non-combat label. (emphasis added)

A spokesman for Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates, Lt. Col. Patrick S. Ryder, told IPS Tuesday that "several advisory and assistance brigades" would be part of a U.S. command in Iraq that will be "re-designated" as a "transition force headquarters" after August 2010.

Despite Obama’s pledge, new evidence has emerged that combat brigades will remain in Iraq under a different name.

But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs, except for the addition of a few dozen officers who would carry out the advice and assistance missions, according to military officials involved in the planning process.

[tridim]

5. The vets and the troops like it.

Maybe you should listen to them instead of always taking the hyper-negative view on everything?

[ClassWarrior]

6. Link?

NGU.

[tridim]

7. Listening to the applause of hoo-hahs from the audience of vets and troops.

[ClassWarrior]

9. In your head?

:eyes:

NGU.

[tridim]

10. So, you're not watching. Lovely.

[ClassWarrior]

11. Okay... Please enjoy your own private little dialogue. I intend to return to the discussion.

:shrug:

NGU.

[tridim]

14. I can't wait.

I'll give you a topic:

Explain, in your world, how cheering troops equals disapproval.

[ClassWarrior]

17. Oh, I get it now. Obama's on the teevee announcing this now, and he has a handpicked group...

...of troops and vets behind him cheering his plan.

So you're saying that must mean that ALL the troops and vets support this.

:eyes:

Next time, please be clear about what you mean. Not everyone is lounging in front of the television at the moment.

NGU.

[tridim]

18. Just like Bush huh.

Man oh man.

[ClassWarrior]

19. No, not like Bush**. If you have to distort someone else's position to make your point...

...maybe you need a better point.

NGU.

[tridim]

22. I said the troops and vets in the audience are cheering the plan.

That is a fact. You would understand if you watched the speech.

It's not a point, or a theory, or a meme, it's just exactly what happened not 10 minutes ago.

[mdmc]

43. What did the troops do on May 1st 2003?

I remember them cheering the end of combat activities / mission accomplished thingy..

[tridim]

58. No need to beat around the "bush"

If you want to call Obama a liar, just say so.

[frylock]

52. just like they did for bush..

they did cheer and clap and yell hoo-hah and oo-rah for bush too, right?

[tridim]

57. Bush never announced the troops were coming home..

Because Bush was for perpetual war.

So, no it's not "just like they did for Bush", except in the faux-reality you've created for yourself.

[frylock]

61. 50000 will remain..

so TECHNICALLY, they aren't coming home.

[harun]

8. They like their new title? or that at least some get to come home?

[dflprincess]

46. Get to come home long enough to say hello to family and friends

before they ship out to Afghanistan.

[sasquuatch55]

62. Or Iran?

nt

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

13. riiiiight

Because the troops know what's best for the nation.

:eyes:

[tridim]

16. You and classwarrior are going to get along splendidly.

Enjoy your conversation in the deep black void.

[JonLP24]

24. I am one

I'm also concerned about what happens to the TCNs. Do they get the honor they deserve or a chance to come into the US for all the hard work they've done. I'm sure they all wish that were well paid instead.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12675

[derby378]

53. Maybe Obama should listen instead to Americans who said our invasion was illegal to begin with

Of course our troops will applaud. They're supposed to. But where are those WMDs, anyway?

[dipsydoodle]

35. Wouldn't worry about contractors too much

They just become fair game for the turkey shoot.

[backtomn]

37. Actually....I believe that it was "all troops home in 16 months"

Not "all combat troops" home in 19 months (or more). Obviously, there will be significant troops there to monitor Iraqi military actions. You make a great additional point.......this has nothing to do with contractors, mercenaries, etc.

Regardless, his promise WAS NOT about "COMBAT TROOPS" and it was "16 months"......HE LIED.....again. We are probably going to have to acknowledge that troops will be in Iraq and Afghanistan for at least 10 more years.

Not to mention your additional brillian point......HOW MANY ADDITIONAL DOLLARS???!!!

[Fearless]

39. +1

[JTFrog]

49. You called him a liar, I want to see a link to back up your claim.

In the meantime, here's a couple to keep things real around here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/world/americas/04iht-04military.18385946.html

"I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq," Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-sticks-to-his-iraq-plan/

How quickly should troops leave? His campaign Web site says: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al-Qaida attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al-Qaida."

Your turn. :shrug:

[Igel]

69. So, what you're saying is that Obama was straight with us.

That he had all the combat troops out 16 months after he was inaugurated.

That would be May 2010. So why is he bothering to mention August? I mean, isn't it a stronger point to say, "I kept my promise--all the combat troops were out on the schedule I promised, May 2010."

Ah.

Note that I'm not calling him a liar. They're your quotes.

I don't even think that breaking his promise makes him a liar. He made promises that he could only keep after revision. Gitmo, for instance. He spoke of things he didn't know about.

It's the same with doubling exports by some particular year. It's simply not within his power to guarantee that. Making a promise to that effect is great politics but foolishness in ethical and moral terms. He's done this a number of times and often gives misleading--not false--analyses.

So he's keeping his promise and pulling the combat troops out on schedule. It's just that he's not keeping his promised schedule, although he is keeping his promise about pulling out combat troops--so he's telling the truth but not the whole truth; and he's using the one negotiated before he was inaugurated, and making it seem like it was his schedule.

[JTFrog]

70. What I'm saying is that poster called Obama a liar based on "combat troops".

Yea, I'm saying he's been straight with us.

His campaign promise (which you've already noted was not completely within his power to guarantee) may have said 16 months, but within his first few weeks of taking office he specifically stated it would be three months later than pledged and set a date of August 31, 2010. It's not like he just pulled this date out of his ass today. :shrug:

[indepat]

56. Another ten? How about until 2525, if man is still alive?

:shrug:

[still_one]

54. The question is are 'all combat troops' including the mercenaries as you pointed out? /nt

[Rhiannon12866]

63. +1

The 2008 election was a mandate to end Bush*'s wars. This sounds like more of Colin Powell's "Cracker Barrel" analogy... ;(

[NYMdaveNYI]

4. so we can start Bush/Cheney’s war crimes trial now? |nt|

[mikelgb]

20. and remember if Obama didn't promise it...

you have no right to complain

and if he did promise it, it was just a campaign promise anyhow, he has to deal with reality

so basically there is no reason to complain at all

:bounce:

[superconnected]

28. At least it's not like under Bush where if you complained you were put on a terrorist

list... oh wait..

[Historic NY]

21. A lot of stuff and troops have been coming home since April, guess its not newsworthy..

The VP & his lovely wife just welcomes home the 10th Mountain division in upstate NY.

[JonLP24]

25. The question would be

are they being replaced? Meaning when a unit is deployed, another unit well come and the unit that is already there will train for a couple of weeks then leave. That unit that just showed up takes its place. I have no idea. I just hope we stay on the timeline.

[JonLP24]

23. Obama: 'Our commitment in Iraq is changing'

President Obama outlined the end of combat operations in Iraq this month, and told a veterans group that the troops who fought there should be honored despite the many political disputes surrounding the seven-year war.

"As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end," Obama told the Disabled Veterans of America Conference. "I made it clear that by August 31, 2010 America's combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing -- as promised and on schedule."

Obama, who had opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a distraction from the concurrent war in Afghanistan, told the crowd that by the end of this month, more than 90,000 troops will have been brought home from Iraq since he took office in January of 2009.

The president also defended his Afghanistan policy amid rising criticism of that war in the face of higher casualties, including increased opposition from congressional Democrats.

"Let us never forget," Obama said, "it was Afghanistan where al Qaeda plotted and trained to murder 3,000 innocent people on 9/11."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/08/obama-our-commitment-in-iraq-is-changing/1

[superconnected]

26. This is political propaganda. Al Quaeda didn't plan to murder 3000 Americans

They planned to take out the world trade organization and failed miserably. It wasn't an attack on Americans just to attack Americans. It would have cost about 10-30k lives had they not been able to evacuate most from those buildings. And it was an attack that they(the terrorists involved right down to planning) should be hung for and that Bush Co should be hung for - for letting happen.

Nearly all of the terrorists in the attacks were Saudis but I see Obama is still trying to spin where we needed to attack Iraq because now, the point is, - "they were trained there."

Why isn't Bin Laden swinging from a tree, Obama? Or would that cost us millions in war contracts and not keep the war going?

[defendandprotect]

32. It's all war-making propaganda for oil --

from the first of the lies -- 9/11 -- MIHOP

Further -- what Muslim terrorist would possibly think it would make sense to kill

2,000-3,000 Americans and see that followed up by full scale wars vs Afghanistan and

Iraq -- a hundred thousand or more Muslims tortured in US prisons -- and 1 MILLION MUSLIMS

and more now dead -- and their countries occupied for almost a decade!!

Either terrorists can't count -- or we're insane for believing it!!

[superconnected]

33. Agreed, but that trillion in war contracts was also part of the deal.

[defendandprotect]

64. There was a great load of stuff in the "deal" . . . . natural resources in ME --

bigger foothold in ME -- great new opportunity for well-connected mercenaries/BW --

Lots of stuff was "disappeared" from the WTC, including SEC records, Enron records --

and another large Wall Street push which was a repeat of what they did behind the JFK coup --

Who knows what all else --

But, presume we agree the actual "terrorists" were Bush/Cheney?

[Cant trust em]

40. Where does Obama say that 9/11 was connected to Iraq?

Based on the quote provided it seems to indicate that this was in a section where he defends his position in Afghanistan.

"The president also defended his Afghanistan policy amid rising criticism of that war in the face of higher casualties, including increased opposition from congressional Democrats.

"Let us never forget," Obama said, "it was Afghanistan where al Qaeda plotted and trained to murder 3,000 innocent people on 9/11."

[defendandprotect]

30. We need a president who will say this war was a LIE -- a farce . . .

[dflprincess]

45. "Let us never forget," Obama said, "it was Afghanistan where al Qaeda plotted and trained to murder

3,000 innocent people on 9/11."

Where have I heard that kind of crap before? But I suppose Obama has to say it so he can justify continuing the policy of endless war.

:puke:

[defendandprotect]

27. We built 20 new permanent military bases in Iraq ...

and a Taj Mahal of a US Embassy there --

This is SOME movement in the right direction -- but far from what we really need --

expecially considering these two points --

the wars are bankrupting our Treasury -- which is a good way to destroy democracy --

And -- we elected Democrats in '06 to END THE WAR . . . which Pelosi confirmed!!

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

29. .. "all combat troops" except 50/65,000? Sounds like "totally free checking" . . .!!

[slay]

38. Doesn't it though?

color me unimpressed with this - seems more propaganda than real withdrawl. :eyes:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. We still have combat troops in Japan

War's been over for a while. The United States had active military bases in the Philippine for a century following the Spanish-American War. There are still about 30,000 active duty troops in South Korea.

For those of you collectively wetting yourselves over a support and advisory force in Iraq, calm the hell down. We're not doing anything in Iraq that we're not doing in dozens of places all over the globe. Now you could argue that this isn't our place and that ALL of these troops should be brought home -- that would be another issue altogether. But there's nothing special about troops being in Iraq.

[TBF]

36. We're not doing anything in Iraq that we're not doing in dozens of places all over the globe.

And that, my dear Jeff in Milwaukee, is the problem.

[defendandprotect]

65. Bring all the troops home -- let's stop occupying other countries . ..!!

[daleo]

66. In those days there wasn't a $12 trillion dollar debt

Owed to an actual geopolitical power of consequence (China), with the debt growing day by day to that same rival power.

[burnsei sensei]

41. "to protect U.S. interests" should be read as:

to protect the 17 permanent facilities we built during our occupation of their country.

[Roland99]

79. Much more than that. Protect the oil pipelines

[mdmc]

42. Obama calls for end of combat activities in Iraq

yet Bush already called for Mission Accomplished on May 1 2003..

[Better Believe It]

44. So when will all U.S. combat troops be withdrawn from Iraq?

I don't think the 50,000 to 65,000 remaining troops will be armed with paint guns be incapable of combat.

[still_one]

55. They won't be, that is my guess, at long as Iraq has oil /nt

[Cant trust em]

73. This is a silly talking point.

There's a big difference between actively going on missions to take out potential insurgents and performing a largely training and support operation.

[alp227]

47. Good. This war is bankrupting America.

Teabag cheers in 3...2...1...infinity? No, it's really unemployment benefits and lazy folks' welfare that's causing our massive debt! :sarcasm:

Seriously. A war that never should've happened. We never got the WMDs, and all we got were thousands of dead troops and billions of dollars wasted.

[SLCLiberal]

50. Kinda like...

Geraldo opening Al Capone's vault, 'cept hundreds of thousands didn't die and it didn't cost billions/month.

[JDPriestly]

48. This is the answer to Assange and Wikileaks.

Smart move, Mr. President. Now don't change your mind. We should never have gone in there in the first place. I, for one, am tired of fighting wars to keep the Saudi princes on their thrones.

Let's seriously invest in alternative energy instead. Please do much more than you have thus far with regard to alternative energy. All new buildings built in the US should use alternative energy to heat themselves -- solar, wind or be plugged into some system that is truly environmentally friendly. Forget nuclear energy and coal. They just mean that we will have the Gulf Spill times a thousand.

If we had spent half the money, half the creativity, half the manpower we put into the Iraq War into becoming energy independent and developing alternative energy, we would be able to say goodbye and good luck to the Saudi princes, Chavez, the whole lot of them.

[Deep13]

51. 65,000? that's like two divisions.

I guess if they are out by the end of next year it would be okay. But saying all combat troops will be out this month while leaving two divisions there is a bit misleading.

[Baclava]

59. Mercs - - - State Dept. planning to field a small army in Iraq

July 21, 2010

WASHINGTON — Can diplomats field their own army? The State Department is laying plans to do precisely that in Iraq, in an unprecedented experiment that U.S. officials and some nervous lawmakers say could be risky.

In little more than a year, State Department contractors in Iraq could be driving armored vehicles, flying aircraft, operating surveillance systems, even retrieving casualties if there are violent incidents and disposing of unexploded ordnance.

A report July 12 by the bipartisan legislative Commission on Wartime Contracting said that the number of State Department security contractors would more than double, from 2,700 to between 6,000 and 7,000, under current plans.

Under the terms of a 2008 status of forces agreement, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, but they’ll leave behind a sizable American civilian presence, including the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the world, and five consulate-like "Enduring Presence Posts" in the Iraqi hinterlands.

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/iraq/state-dept-planning-to-field-a-small-army-in-iraq-1.111839

[ProSense]

67. The WH issued a

Fact Sheet

[lovuian]

68. its nice words but actions speaks better

keeping 146,000 troops in Iraq and afghanistan is too many still

[unkachuck]

71. Than you Mr. President, for not withdrawing the withdrawal....

....however

"...50,000 of 65,000 US troops currently in Iraq are set to remain..." sounds like a very limp and feeble withdrawal to me....

....to some, if one wished to disappoint, one would withdraw prematurely....but given the length of our intercourse with Iraq, any premature disappointments appear impossible....

....performing a non-withdrawal withdrawal may satisfy a few, but will leave many of your friends unfulfilled and craving for more....

[Yeahyeah]

72. Another steaming pile served up to the American people.

[scheming daemons]

75. Yes.... drawing down from 140,000 to 50,000 in less than 20 months is a "pile"

There's a steaming pile in here, all right.

[Yeahyeah]

82. War is peace.

[scheming daemons]

74. When Obama took office, the number was 140,000. Now it's 50,000.

...and the usual suspects still bitch.


We have 25,000 troops in Korea. We have 50,000 troops in Germany.


Having 50,000 NON-COMBAT troops in Iraq for another year is not a big deal.



This is a major promise kept.

[Yeahyeah]

76. There's no such thing as a "non combat soldier".

[moksha]

77. How many troops died in Korea and Germany the past two years?

About 200 were killed in Iraq.

Korea and Germany are warzones. Iraq still is. The US troops will not be 'non-combat'. They will be active in combat roles.

[Yeahyeah]

81. .

[fascisthunter]

78. I'll be happy when all troops and oil business men and women who wanted this invasion

and occupation are thrown out of the country as well. Thos people need to be held accountable too.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

80. Per the Status of Forces Agreement of December 2008.