Rachel Maddow on MSNBC: Last 50,000 due out by end of next year...

[vaberella]

No one has mentioned this on this site and I just heard it while I was watching Keith Olbermann while he talks to Rachel Maddow, during her hour. This was reaffirmed by Major Stephen Lanza, who was interviewed by Maddow, and he stated this "support" role our soldiers play will due that until September-December 2011.

Everyone is saying what is this "combat troop" thing and we need to be out. Well so far, it would seem all our troops will be out of Iraq is going to be happen. We're keeping this to help shore up (excuse the Palinism) the Iraqi troops and help mitigate the problems they face economically, socially, and of course through rebel warfare. So we're giving them a year until they get it together.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Because it seems all our troops will be out. The 50,000 and at one time,, more soldiers there. this decrease is happening and I'm glad the rest of our guys will be out.


Mentioned towards the end at 5:20-5:25 here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#38763792

and at 2:25-2:30 here with Major Stephen Lanza: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#38763999

[DevonRex]

1. I heard that, too. K&R nt

[vaberella]

4. I went ahead to put up the links and time.

At first I thought I heard wrong, but apparently I did not.

[zipplewrath]

2. What could have been

It's not that anyone has a problem with them leaving, it is a case of questioning why they are still there. The Iraqi forces have been operating relatively "automously" for the better part of the last year. Why 50,000 troops have to stay becomes the question then. Predominately it's because Obama is executing the SOFA. Why he doesn't want them out sooner isn't clear.

[vaberella]

3. It seems to make sense. They said it's a responsible drawdown.

You want it quickly and they are giving them time to get out with some sort of government.

If you saw the interview last night you'll know the Iraqi government is unfortunately lacking in much. Rachel even it is still dangerous and people are still dying here. So this is a valid reason as to why we're still there. Since his office he got out the 50,000 and he's giving time to get out the other 50,000. I think people are having problems with an arbitrary number. It's a large country, not a small one---and they are trying to secure all the details---especially as they're leaving. It's like having a kindergarten when a substitute is there. Normally the Substitute is going to have to stay a little longer than the real teacher is there because the kids will see it as a way to act up and make a mess. It just makes sense, to expect them out at a logical pace. I see nothing wrong with it.

[zipplewrath]

5. Logical?

It's the pace that was negotiate by Bush and Gates based upon relatively arbitrary considerations of the Iraqi government. Bush wanted it to be much longer. It wasn't based upon any military needs. If the Iraqis are already (and have been for some time now) in control, then why do they need 50K troops for another 18 months? That's half of what we have in the much larger country of Afghanistan, where we are still actually in charge.

There's nothing logical about it.

[vaberella]

6. Actually Obama's words during the campaign were not that different.

And yes, for the final bits of Bush's presidency this was negotiated. But I'm speaking about the last 50,000 troops, not the ones now and also by the the New Dawn mission or I think that's the name and Obama is giving it a year. It's again, still dangerous and this was negotiated by Obama, not Bush from what I know of. And they stated last night why they needed people---again there are still rebels. AGain there are still dangers and I stated already that the government although in place is not as strong as the American government would like it to be. Which it's not and everyone can agree with that. Military training is still involved and you tend to watch over something that is still so new. I don't see why that's hard to wrap one's head around.

[zipplewrath]

7. Different name, still a Rose

The 50K was negotiated by Bush. The December 2011 date was negotiated by Bush. I'm not all that impressed that Obama "rebranded" the same old thing with a new name.

And how do 50000 of OUR troops make their NONEXISTENT goverment "stronger"? 50,000 troops aren't there for "training". Why are we spending more lives and money proping up a government? So that they can be a stronger ally of Iran, or a greater threat to Saudi Arabia? How is it in our interest, or thiers, for us to be there another 18 months? Remember, the people shooting at us are Iraqis too. Basically we are in a position of taking sides. And there is a potential civil war getting ready to break out AGAIN.