This was mostly an anti-occupation site. Obama announces the occupation's end and . . . silence

[bigtree]

Discuss . . .

prepared remarks of President Obama about withdrawing from Iraq at Camp Lejeune, N.C., on Feb. 27, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html?pagewanted=print

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. 50,000 left behind ....

... to "fight terrorism" does not sound like "the occupation's end."

[bigtree]

5. 2011

" . . . under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011."

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. "*intends* to". Too much wiggle room for me.

It's almost meaningless.

[bigtree]

18. that's certainly there for the effect you describe

. . . but his statement was so straightforward that I think he'll catch hell in 2011 backtracking on that.

This passage looks designed to provide that 'wiggle room' as well:

"As we carry out this drawdown, my highest priority will be the safety and security of our troops and civilians in Iraq. We will proceed carefully, and I will consult closely with my military commanders on the ground and with the Iraqi government. There will surely be difficult periods and tactical adjustments. But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and theflexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed.

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. Translation: I am committed to the survival of the puppet...

... gov't that we have installed ( or some pro-US variant thereof) on into perpetuity.

Can someone tell me why we just had an election?

[bigtree]

32. I don't see an indefinite commitment here

And I expect the Iraqi regime to change in the future to reflect the influence of regional partners like Iran. There will also be inevitable political alignments in Iraq which will become necessary for any regime there to maintain power without the coercive influence of the U.S. protective forces.

I expect we'll distance ourselves from that government as much as we're basically disregarding the objectionable alliances of the present regime. There were always problems with the Iraqi government that didn't merit enough care to stage an invasion and occupation.

I expect that there will be enough 'stability' in the future (without the U.S. military there) for the corporations to do business and that will satisfy whatever corruption that compelled us to waste lives and treasure there in the first place.

[alfredo]

38. If conflict breaks out between the Sunni and Kurds, that would take out

one, maybe two escape routes.

[anigbrowl]

75. Yes, he should have invoked the tooth fairy

Not that I'm happy about the situation in Iraq or think all the world's evil originates from Iran or anything, but just pulling the plug and leaving would probably lead to the civil war breaking out all over again. I'd prefer we extract ourselves in an orderly fashion.

[Donnachaidh]

2. I don't see how anyone can be foolish enough to believe that leaving 50K troops

in Iraq is the *end of the occupation*. It AIN'T. And re-naming combat battalions is just more of the same LYING we've had to deal with in the past.

[bigtree]

3. what about 2011 when those troops are to exit?

That will be right before the election. It will take some 'splainin' to buck that date.

[Donnachaidh]

11. I just don't see them leaving anytime soon

I think we're going to get smoke blown up our collective @sses with renaming battalions (This boggles the mind --do they REALLY think we're that stupid not to notice) and playing games with figures and information *officially* released.

Does anyone really believe we're going to leave a country that has all that oil? And so strategically placed? Even with the election that they'll be facing. I don't think the MIL is going to let go of the oil resources or the strategic placement anytime soon.

I think we're going to be extremely disappointed with Obama and Iraq.

[bigtree]

19. I hope not.

The best defense against that prospect is vigilance. At the least, we now have a target date to hold the administration to account.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

31. Do my think our party would use our troops as a political tool? ...I do.

[bigtree]

33. In this case

. . . how would you see that playing out?

[dorkulon]

4. Waiting to see what really happens.

We've all been burned before.

[bigtree]

6. that makes sense

I wonder if Congress will try and match or modify this with a resolution?

[CreekDog]

16. do you believe Obama is like everyone else who has burned you before?

do you really think so?

[dorkulon]

39. No.

But he is a politician. Like I said, we'll see what happens.

In fact, I'm not for a complete withdrawal. I'd like to see us honor our responsibilities to the Kurds, for once.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Me cannot wait for this time line to play out and for all forces to be out

by 2011

Well except the Embassy Marines that will serve there, as they do around Embassies around the world

And that might even be a battalion's worth, even a regiment, due to the size of the facility

And yes I want the reason d'etre for the war investigated for the war crime it is, but not willing to blame the troops, especially the young ones who are pretty low in the food chain

(Yes I want to see Bush, Chenney and the rest frogmarched to a court of law)

[bigtree]

9. I'll certainly be less anxious

. . . when we start going below that 50,000 number

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. I know, and even 5K, is a somewhat largish number for most civies

but barely enough for that building

Now if they start making noises about a new SOFA, pull hair out moment... unless the SOFA is for things like just a set of barracks for those troops... though the embassy should have them

[ReliantJ]

8. We just got there!!!

[madrchsod]

10. we are still in korea,japan,the balkans,and others spots around the globe

we`ll still have a presence in the middle east for years to come.

[bigtree]

14. I'd be satisfied to see that military presence

. . . go back to being an international affair instead of the opportunistic unilateralism our government has grown so fond of.

[Bounty_full]

30. Same old

The last was the Balkans, when Clinton sent troops early in the year, announcing "they'll be home by Christmas". It's always wise to not count on such things.

[Catshrink]

13. Too busy debating whether hungry kids should get a cheese sandwich

or how goofy Bobby Jindal is.

I'm suddenly very cranky tonight.

[Marrah_G]

17. I think we are waiting to see it actually happen. Alot can change in a year.

[bigtree]

23. true

. . . but there's a great deal in this speech to hold the president to his word.

one passage:

"What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals. We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries. We cannot police Iraq’s streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq’s union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars. America’s men and women in uniform have fought block by block, province by province, year after year, to give the Iraqis this chance to choose a better future. Now, we must ask the Iraqi people to seize it."

[Marrah_G]

24. I am very hopeful

But I'm still sort of holding my breath.

I think it is just the result of the last 8 years.

[Malikshah]

21. Because it is not the end of the occupation. Those who believe this need

to go read Toby Dodge's Inventing Iraq.

It is a key work one can use to understand what was done wrong, and what continues to be done wrong in Iraq--and how no matter when we do have the last boot leave it will not matter.

We are there for a generation...

Would that folks had studied the history of the creation of this region and learned of the arrogant folly of nation building.

Obama, I believe, realizes this -- were he to spell it out for the populace he would be ridiculed and pilloried.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Well, you asked for it .......

.... I was gunna bite my tongue on this one. Many think honest criticism of Obama means one is a hater.

I am not a hater.

I am also very much not happy with this plan and his remarks. As I heard someone say today, this is the speech Bush would have given if Bush could give a speech.

The draw down still leaves a sizable force there. And along the way there are too many chances for us to change course and escalate again. Like the amorphous "success" of the next election that seems to be a huge opportunity to decide to "stay just a little bit longer."

So ... why the silence?

Cuz some of us are sick of being swarmed by cheerleaders. They know who they are. I don't count you among them.

[Generator]

27. And the icing on the proverbial cake is Obama

calling Bush before he gave the speech "as a courtesy". I am still so stunned by this. And then the DU response-he's so classy to do that. YEAH. Classy if Bush's mother was ill-that's class. Or political savvy. YEAH, if Bush had a crumb of political capital. BUSH HAS NONE. If he was going against the public's wishes on ending the war. NO-they want Iraq over yesterday.

So by Obama calling Bush he is basically saying, yeah. I respect the fact that you started this war in the first place-just letting you know, friend, former leader, that I'm going to try ending it in a couple of years. Oh yes, the man that started the war based on lies and propaganda and using our collective fear and grief over 9/11 to start a war that has left countless dead and maimed-yes oh yes, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush deserves your courtesy.

[bigtree]

37. you should know

I welcome dissent to any militarization.

I thought the speech did draw from many of the homilies Bush offered in his own justifications for continuing. But, he clearly wasn't sincere about leaving. I tend to believe Obama (as well as the exhausted military establishment) is ready to relinquish Bush's Iraq prize, if only for the economics and other ambitions he may have for the military forces.

Obama/Biden isn't Bush/Cheney. I take great comfort in that.

[readmoreoften]

25. And into Afghanistan! What change! My heart is on fire with joy!

Yawn.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

71. Thank you!

[MadMaddie]

26. I think many are overlooking the obvious

He had to say something right? I think the withdrawel by next August is a postive step. As for the remaining troops I wouldn't expect that they will be there until 2011.

President Obama had to get this off of his huge task list so he can focus on the economy. Whether it's pandering to the Repugs to shut them up for now on this issue is not a bad plan. I would guess Gates is looking at other options to pull our troops out earlier than 2011, perhaps actually putting more effort in rebuilding the Iraqi military and security forces and actually providing resources to get the job done.

Face it this is the beginning of the end of the occupation. If McCain/ShotgunPalin would have won we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[bigtree]

40. right

It's pretty clear that the Iraq occupation was only popular in the Bush WH. Most folks think it's an unnecessary waste, including a sizable number of the military (notwithstanding the cheerleaders Bush chose to perpetuate it). Obama doesn't want to stay in Iraq. I believe the occupation's going to end on his watch.

Until it does, though, it makes sense to be skeptical and continue to challenge him to keep to his word.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. "Peace with honor"? "The Light at the end of the tunnel"? Again?

But, at least, we get to see pictures of the bodies coming home...again.

[bigtree]

45. I hope it's not some Nixonian head-fake

I don't believe it ultimately will be (at least not in regard to Iraq), notwithstanding the muddle over the 'advisory forces'.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

29. What are you talking about?

There is absolutely zero chance that Obama plans to end the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq by the colonial forces.

training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq.

However, a strong political, diplomatic, and civilian effort on our part can advance progress and help lay a foundation for lasting peace and security.

And just as we will support Iraq’s Security Forces, we will help Iraqi institutions strengthen their capacity to protect the rule of law, confront corruption, and deliver basic services.

That leads me to the third part of our strategy –comprehensive American engagement across the region.

You seriously need to re-read the piece and parse it a little bit better.

What's going on is quite simply a re-branding of the occupation and the privatization of everything that isn't nailed down. In addition the intent is to turn the entire region into a "Free Trade" zone, which means full speed ahead with the corporate plunder. Obama is on board for all of this they will simply use US "advisers" as done in Central America and private contractors along with imperial-lite agencies such as US-AID.

[bigtree]

36. or,

President Obama's words about diplomacy and non-military support could be sincere. We will have to wait and see if there is an commitment to the "political, diplomatic, and civilian effort" he describes. The 'engagement' he describes is diplomatic, not military.

I really don't understand a stance against economic development efforts, as long as we're not staging or maintaining an occupation to effect those. It's not as if there aren't real obstacles to Iraq's success outside of Bush's occupation (which Obama is charged with cleaning up). I think that we should still do whatever we do to spur investment in Iraq, and that will increasingly be on the Iraqis' terms as the heavy-hand of our occupation recedes.

This isn't the duplicitous speech of Bush.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

65. Of course Obama is sincere

He has been clear long before and during the campaign and since he was elected.

The plans are not difficult to parse. The US occupation is to continue. Western investment is already flooding into Iraq.

It seems baffling as to how you could've come to any other conclusion.

As for those "economic development" programs just keep an eye on the Iraq Oil Report as things are already happening apace and it's not difficult to see who is running the show.

When you say "on the Iraqi's terms" tell me please who you mean by the "Iraqi's." When that term is used by the US government they mean the Iraqi government which is at present a US proxy.

Do thorough research on this. Follow the money.

As an aside John McCain supports Obama's non-withdrawal "withdrawal plan" so that should present a red flag for ya'.

[bigtree]

69. I'm not sure how you tie Obama to 'the money'

I don't buy the argument that he's some establishment plant. As president he has the choice to ignore all of the influences that you seem to think make his statement a lie and follow through on his commitment. I'm trusting that he will, in the end. We'll see.

For now, he should be held to his word . . .

"What we will not do is let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals. We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries. We cannot police Iraq’s streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq’s union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars. America’s men and women in uniform have fought block by block, province by province, year after year, to give the Iraqis this chance to choose a better future. Now, we must ask the Iraqi people to seize it."

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. I think we will see improvements after Gates and Petraous get filtered out

The Defense Department is still stuffed with Bushie Neo-con yes men which
Obama must deal with too on getting a withdrawal going.

[bigtree]

43. that's true

I've been watching, though, as Gates and others are providing some political cover for the ending of what had been characterized as a test of patriotism to support. I'll bet the president is just as wary of them. But, today he showed that he was in charge. It's his decision, not the military.

[leftstreet]

35. Obama is the new CEO of Better Managed American Imperialism

Not a hater here.

It just is what it is.

[EraOfResponsibility]

41. ...

:eyes:

[leftstreet]

58. ...

Don't you :eyes: me.

:hi:

[EraOfResponsibility]

60. ...

I'll :eyes: you all I want!

:yoiks:

[scarletwoman]

46. Bingo! Well-said. (nt)

[bertman]

57. leftstreet, that is a very astute observation. I HATE that it is accurate.

[LeftyMom]

42. He announced a targeted end date two years in the future in order to shift the mayhem to the other

disastrous occupation.

You'll forgive me if I don't squeal with joy.

[bigtree]

44. didn't ask for joy . . . just an opinion.

the trade-off to Afghanistan is disturbing.

I am anxious, though, to put the Iraq debacle behind us.

[Robbien]

47. A wimpy ass statement of sometime in the far future ONLY 50,000 troops will be occupying Iraq

sounds like a wimpy Obama/Clintonesque triangulation occupation to me.

I am getting so sick of all this triangulation Obama is doing and even sicker of people who demand that I stand up and cheer when Obama sticks it to us. It is a lie that we are leaving Iraq. 50,000 troops are staying there killing Iraqis and making their lives a utter hell.

AND we have to wait two years before he even begins this shit ass plan.

[bigtree]

49. who asked you to cheer?

I will be satisfied to see the bulk of the force leave. I'll also remain vigilant to see the remaining troops leave in 2011.

The Iraqi elections are in June. I expect the drawdown to begin shortly after that. I'd like it sooner, but that's apparently not going to come from the person we elected. It is a triangular decision the president has made. I'll be looking (and pressing) for our side of that triangle to dominate and prevail.

[Robbien]

51. YOU did

by your snarky "Obama ends occupation . . . and silence from DU"


Obama ends occupation is a LIE.

You may be pleased we will continue the occupation forever and ever with maybe perhaps (if conditions permit) ONLY 50,000 troops making lives miserable for Iraqis. But I am not.

Being silent is the better response most DUers can give because the real response for many of us is pure disgust.

[bigtree]

52. you don't know me very well

I think most folks saw my post and decided it was a slam on Obama. I'm famously skeptical about Iraq; even more skeptical and critical of the military leadership the new president has surrounded himself with.

He says ALL troops out by 2011. We'll see.

(When did DU'ers stop responding with disgust?)

[Robbien]

55. What?

Obama did not say all troops out of Iraq by 2011.

He said all combat troops out by 2011. Then all those combat troops are re-labeled and will mysteriously be "peace keepers". Not occupiers. Yeah right.

Your statement was not a slam on Obama. My posts have been a slam on Obama.

He is lying. The occupation will not be ending under his watch.

[bigtree]

56. Obama: Let me say this as plainly as I can:

" . . . by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

"And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html?pagewanted=print

[Robbien]

63. Weasel words

"Combat mission will end" but then, poof, the exact same occupying combat troops will mysteriously turn into beautiful wonderful lovable peace keepers doing the same duties they did during the occupation.


And then in 2011 there will be a new Status of Forces Agreement, but of course not called Status of Forces Agreement. This new agreement will be just a cover for the continuation of the occupation.

[bigtree]

64. but, on his word

. . . all troops out by the end of 2011.

The rest is speculation. We'll see.

[Smarmie Doofus]

68. You omitted the next sentence:

"But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and theflexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed. "

[ddeclue]

48. Ummm it was a rather UNDER whelming announcement...

we'll be leaving in 17 months but um not really because we'll leave 50,000 troops there after that.

Doug D.

[bigtree]

50. It was a sea change from what we've been drowning in for years now

Did you listen to the whole speech?

[bertman]

53. Lots to like and LOTS NOT TO LIKE. In 18 months with 50,000 in-country and the

civil war blows back up, emergency SURGE-ery will be required.

WE DID NOT INVADE IRAQ TO RID THEM OF SADDAM HUSSEIN as our President stated today. A blatant re-telling of history in favor of BUSHCO. That was a very bad moment.

Being a veteran I loved what he said about helping our vets and making the military and the VA more responsive (and better funded).

Raising the pay is a good thing for our troops. Especially since we'll need lots more of them to keep throwing at the Middle East. That higher pay package will be a good option for lots of Americans who have no other employment options open to them. And it will help secure President Obama's goal of increasing the number of Americans in the uniformed services.

I love the way he acts, speaks, and empathizes like an actual warm, caring human being.

He showed the world today that HE IS THE COMMANDER-in-CHIEF.


On another note, those basic trainees they put in the seats behind the President were scary. They looked like freakin' robots. Scared to make a false move for fear of the number of pushups and the suicide drills they'd be doing if they clapped too soon or showed even a flicker of emotion without their sergeant's okay. That's the part of the military life that I remember the least fondly.

[bigtree]

54. 'HE IS THE COMMANDER-in-CHIEF'

I think the more he realizes that, the more decisive he'll be about making and following through on decisions like this one.

[stillcool]

59. There should be more than enough...

people/troops working at the embassy, and at those permanent bases to provide military aid to Iraq. I don't understand the 50,000 number, unless it has something to do with Iran?

[bigtree]

61. Congress should get Gates and the others up to the Capitol

. . . to answer that.

[Fireweed247]

62. Because it is BULLSHIT!

This war should have never happened, it has no redeeming value whatsoever yet Obama says we have to stay to protect our 'gains'. He is pretending that we have stopped Alqueda in Iraq. He is using all the same fucking bullshit rhetoric as Bush and after running an anti war campaign we are expected to be happy when he says he will pull the troops in 3 years conveniently before he runs for reelection. This is self serving Bullshit and I think everyone is sick of it.

What did the Iraqis do to deserve this? Absofuckinlutely nothing. I am so sick of this god damned war, the killing and the bullshit excuses for continuing. What difference does it make to the Iraqis that will be killed in the next years whether Obama says we are leaving or not?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

66. Simple fact

Ignoring the simple fact that as long as any foreign troops are in the country it is occupied, the people are not free, and will all the year zero extreme neo-liberal laws be removed? Will unions be able to form? Will privatized utilities be brought back into public hands? Who will own the oil and who will get the revenue?

[bigtree]

70. Of course it's still occupied.

The prospect, though, is that, by the end of 2011, it won't be.

I have confidence that the Iraqi regime knows how to conduct business to their own advantage, once the heavy-hand of the U.S. occupation releases its grip on Baghdad.

[leftstreet]

67. kick for more responses

n/t

[RevolutionStartsNow]

72. This was on page 15 before I kicked it...

I am looking for some discourse about Obama's pullout plan and had to go through 15 PAGES of DU before I found anything...Sad.

My daughter is working on a project that is focused on ending the war a lot sooner than what Obama is suggesting, I am curious to read some discussion on the topic.

[Nye Bevan]

73. A Democratic president ending the Iraq war

and the LBN thread gets 12 replies and 3 recs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3759546

This place always finds ways to surprise me.

[NNN0LHI]

74. Little correction. Iraq has been falling off the radar around here for years

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1419124

Tue Jul-24-07 10:08 AM

Poll question: What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?

Poll result (97 votes)

War in Iraq (17 votes, 18%) Vote
Health care (5 votes, 5%) Vote
Economy/Jobs (0 votes, 0%) Vote
Terrorism and national security (3 votes, 3%) Vote
Energy and the cost of gas (1 votes, 1%) Vote
Private mercenary armies (1 votes, 1%) Vote
Foreign policy (2 votes, 2%) Vote
Illegal immigration (5 votes, 5%) Vote
The environment and global warming (11 votes, 11%) Vote
Something else (52 votes, 54%)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3181562

Sat Apr-19-08 09:08 PM

Poll question: What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?

Poll result (143 votes)

War in Iraq (26 votes, 18%) Vote
Health care (12 votes, 8%) Vote
Economy/Jobs (41 votes, 29%) Vote
Terrorism and national security (1 votes, 1%) Vote
Energy and the cost of gas (4 votes, 3%) Vote
Private mercenary armies (0 votes, 0%) Vote
Foreign policy (0 votes, 0%) Vote
Illegal immigration (2 votes, 1%) Vote
The environment and global warming (18 votes, 13%) Vote
Something else (39 votes, 27%)