18
   

Iraq Troop Draw-down by EoY 2011?

 
 
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 04:37 pm
So Obama announced troops would be coming home from Iraq before the end of the year. Anyone have details? Exactly how many will remain there?

A
R
T
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 05:35 pm
@failures art,
All of those troops came home in 2009. Obama promised.
roger
 
  4  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 05:37 pm
@joefromchicago,
So, have they found jobs yet?
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 05:54 pm
Perry seems to suggest that the 40K shouldn't come home just yet.
As I understand it, Art, the remaining troops will be your standard embassy guards.
An issue is that Iraq officials - of which there are many - refuse to grant immunity to our troops who commit real or imagined violations of Iraqi law. That immunity to local law is standard in other countries where we have troops.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 05:56 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

So, have they found jobs yet?

Yes, I understand they're all employed wiping the asses of millionaires with $100 bills.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 06:03 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:
An issue is that Iraq officials - of which there are many - refuse to grant immunity to our troops who commit real or imagined violations of Iraqi law. That immunity to local law is standard in other countries where we have troops.


This is absolutely false. The term for agreements between host nations and foreign military contingents within their territory is, in English, status of forces agreements--SOFA.

From the Wikipedia article on SOFA:

Quote:
The SOFA is intended to clarify the terms under which the foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, purely military issues such as the locations of bases and access to facilities are covered by separate agreements. The SOFA is more concerned with the legal issues associated with military individuals and property. This may include issues like entry and exit into the country, tax liabilities, postal services, or employment terms for host-country nationals, but the most contentious issues are civil and criminal jurisdiction over the bases. For civil matters, SOFAs provide for how civil damages caused by the forces will be determined and paid. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts will have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a servicemember against another servicemember or by a servicemember as part of his or her military duty, but the host nation retains jurisdiction over other crimes. (emphasis added)
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 06:03 pm
@joefromchicago,
I guess I am missing something, Joe and Roger. I don't understand what point you are making. I am dense, I admit.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 06:17 pm
@failures art,
Just in time for an election.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 06:31 pm
As it was noted to me, this date (EoY11) was last negotiated under Bush. Obama simply did not chose to extend it. So if it was a reelection strategy, it was born before even becoming President. We call plans made before becoming President campaign promises.

To be critical, one would need to the reason to keep our forces there.

He played these cards pretty close to the vest, but it's not the first time. If he politically benefits from ending one of the longest wars in our history, so be it.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 06:38 pm
This is the wording of the agreement reached back in 2008:

Quote:
On November 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, establishing that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, but allowing for further negotiation if the Iraqi Prime Minister believes Iraq is not stable enough.


I haven't seen any evidence that the Iraqis want us to stay.

It's probably time for them to sink or swim on their own. I hope they swim.

ART: One article I scanned the other day said 160 soldiers would remain in Iraq, their duties to be embassy-related. I'm assuming guard positions. I hope they're very well paid.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 07:28 pm
This is great....My wife was away 3.3 years, has PTSD now because of it, and now Iraq is going to become a satellite of our arch enemy Iran...Oh ya, and we blew a few trillion dollars that we did not dont have and will continue to load onto our kids charge card....America is lead by fools...the overthrow of the elites can't happen soon enough.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 07:54 pm
@failures art,
This is strictly a public relations move on the part of the Obama organization. Press releases are issued and the president makes a speech announcing something that was part of the original Status of Forces Agreement to begin with as though it was a new decision that we should all applaud. It's not news. It would have been news if, for some reason, an announcement was made that our troops will remain in Iraq in significant numbers. But then, of course, the GOP would be guaranteed the White House even if they put Bozo the Clown up as their candidate (which they're damn close to doing with Rick Perry).

What troops will remain will be the standard contingent of USMC embassy guards and other military security and diplomatic security personnel. Possibly a hundred or so advisors to the Iraqui military, now that they're allies. They will be paid the standard rate for their rank, including a differential for hazardous duty, I imagine.

PS -- having said all that, and just so as not to confuse anyone as to where I stand, at this point I'm still an Obama supporter. Nobody else worth supporting has come along the line in quite a while.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 08:07 pm
@realjohnboy,
Then, I guess I should have asked what we are going to do with a large quantity of unneeded soldiers, especially considering the availability of civilian jobs with their particular skill set.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 08:19 pm
@roger,
Doesn't say anywhere that the returning troops will be mustered out of service. They all have jobs already. No reason why most won't keep them. There's no draft these days; these guys and gals are all volunteers who will largely stay in the jobs they now have in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 11:19 pm
What the hell! Everyones been screaming because he hasent kept his campaign promise re Iraq and now their screaming because he has. I think the world is populated by idiots.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2011 12:22 am
@RABEL222,
Who's screaming?
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2011 12:31 am
@Lustig Andrei,
The repubs. Dont you read the news?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2011 12:36 am
@RABEL222,
Oh, them. Who gives a **** about them? They screamed when Obama won the Nobel. That's not news either. That's their job -- putting down the opposition.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2011 02:40 am
We are going to hear reports that the only one in Iraq who really wanted us gone was Sadr and that we could have renegotiated the original SOFA if we started sooner. Probably right on both counts.

Keep in mind that while our military was recommending we keep a force of something close to 25K there, Obama already announced that it wouldn't be more than 3,000. A number of military "experts" opined that 3,000 wouldn't be sufficient to protect themselves.

Since Obama wasn't going to follow the advice of his generals, our service men and woman are probably better off with O remaining rather than 3,000

Hard to say if there was a chance to keep a force of between 10K and 25K there beyond 2011, but it's safe to bet there were Iraqis who would have preferred a continuing American presence in 2012 at least.

I guess it's not too late now. If the Iraqis come begging for us to stay, I don't think it's politically impossible for Obama to change his mind. Those sort of "upon further review" changes are made all the time.

I don't think he wants them to come begging though and is quite content to pull all the troops out by the end of 2011.

It's not like he led anyone to believe otherwise, and he campaigned on ending the war there.

It will be a tragic shame though if after losing almost 5,000 American lives and spending billions of taxpayer dollars, the country goes to hell in a handbasket soon after our troops leave.

I suppose if Iran invaded Iraq we might stick our noses back in, but why would Iran do something like that? With us gone and our backing of allies from afar suspect, Iran won't need violence to turn Iraq into a vassel state.

If sectarian violence flares up and something like a civil war ensues, we're not going back in. Iraq will simply revert back to its former status as strongman controlled state.

I have a feeling I'm going to look back on Iraq in another 10 years and conclude the loss of life and treasure wasn't worth it. I hope not but I don't have a steadfast confidence in that country.

If it does pan out that way I will place the greatest blame at the feet of George W Bush (He can then pass it along to Rummy if he wants). The surge was the right decision and because of it there is a chance that the whole mess will not be for naught, but the Bush Administration fumbled the ball early on...right after the mission was announced to have been accomplished, and even though I still support the original decision to invade, the several years of incompetent handling that followed can't be forgotten.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2011 02:47 am
Obama fucked up here yet again, big time.,,,,he was sure that we were going to be able to leave a lot of troops after the end of the year, but he could not make it happen and he waited too long to figure this out. Now we need to take out 40K troops plus something like 20K civilian support staff in just 10 weeks, which is insane. It will be very difficult to get them out safely at that forced pace, and we will leave a lot of assets behind because we dont have time to get them out.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iraq Troop Draw-down by EoY 2011?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 02:48:38