Obama announces total withdrawl from Iraq

[Mr. Sinister]

By the end of the year

Obama: All US troops out of Iraq by end of year NBC, msnbc.com and news services WASHINGTON —President Barack Obama on Friday declared an end to the Iraq war, one of the longest and most divisive conflicts in U.S. history, announcing that all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from the country by year's end. “As promised the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over,” Obama said. "Today I can say that troops in Iraq will be home for the holidays."

The president made the announcement at a White House briefing following a private video conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Obama said the two were in full agreement about how to move forward. The withdrawal of American troops marks a major milestone in the war that started in 2003 and resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. More than 4,400 American military members have been killed, and another 2,000 wounded since the U.S. invasion.

Better late than never, but still good news.

[Rabid]

Just to be sure... When he say "remove all troops", does he mean ALL the troops, or will there still be a few men left to, say, "train" (whatever that mean nowadays) the Iraqi armed forces or something like that ?

[Crateria]

The "fight the insurgents" troops will be offically forced to return. The "protect the oil wells and boss around help the Iraqis" troops are there to stay. Comprende?

EDIT: Admittedly this might not be the case. But it's better to look at this announcement with more than an inkling of suspicion or cynicism. You're more likely to be correct IMHO.

[MarshalPurnell]

All of the troops are going, as laid out in the article itself. Negotiations to keep 5,000 American trainers in the country broke down over the issue of legal immunity for them. Skepticism is one thing, not comprehending what is being said is quite another.

[Crateria]

All of the troops are going, as laid out in the article itself. Negotiations to keep 5,000 American trainers in the country broke down over the issue of legal immunity for them. Skepticism is one thing, not comprehending what is being said is quite another.

Honestly I don't trust the USA to keep as tidy an arrangement as you think they will. Even if they totally pull out all of their troops by the set date it doesn't stop them from bossing around Iraq since they are the ones who can basically call the shots.

[Mr. Sinister]

Just to be sure... When he say "remove all troops", does he mean ALL the troops, or will there still be a few men left to, say, "train" (whatever that mean nowadays) the Iraqi armed forces or something like that ?

From what I understand, besides a few troops to guard the embasy, all troops are packing up. Including those who were meant to train the Iraqi army. Contractors might be staying, but they're on their own.

[Themightytom]

I guess I'm impressed that the same conservatives in my newsfeed who were demanding Obama pull out of costly failed nation building and bring our troops home are now forecasting that this is being mishandled, Iraq will undergo a civil war and become another Iran and we're all doomed.

[Crateria]

I guess I'm impressed that the same conservatives in my newsfeed who were demanding Obama pull out of costly failed nation building and bring our troops home are now forecasting that this is being mishandled, Iraq will undergo a civil war and become another Iran and we're all doomed.

Well duh they will. Where have you been for the past, idunno, 50 years or more?

As for Iraq, either it stays under the inefficient corrupt puppet government MURRICA has given it or it falls apart due to a flare up in tensions. They are probably correct if they say that. But they'll lay the blame at Obama's feet rather than the Bush admin for going in there in the first place.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Heh, when Obama was running for the Presidency, December of 2011 was when I predicted we would have fully withdrawn from Iraq by if he was elected. Nice to see I guessed right.

[Zaune]

I guess I'm impressed that the same conservatives in my newsfeed who were demanding Obama pull out of costly failed nation building and bring our troops home are now forecasting that this is being mishandled, Iraq will undergo a civil war and become another Iran and we're all doomed.

That's exactly what just about everyone whose grasp of military theory didn't come exclusively from Command and Conquer has been saying since Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck was in the planning stages. Figures they only work it out now they can blame it on the President who beat their preferred candidate.

[Simon_Jester]

I wonder, purely as a counterfactual, what would have happened if we'd left Saddam in place.

Would he still be alive? Probably; I doubt he'd be as vulnerable to the "Arab Spring" as Mubarak and Qaddafi turned out to be.

What would happen when he died, though? Would his country remain stable under some new tyrant? Or would it all fall apart and go to hell?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't think we necessarily failed. I suspect Iraq will become a mega-lebanon, a pseudo-democracy with a pseudo-government split between the various religious and ethnic factions which can "sort of" keep the country's sovereignty intact. Without an Israel on the border they should even keep the equivalent of Hezbollah from settling down.

[Mr Bean]

Just to be clear

The troops are not coming home, they are being moved to Kuwait or re-purposed to Afghanistan, we are still years away from a peacetime footing for our soldiers. We have left Iraq but we have not in any way shape or form left the region. We will be in the same boat in Iraq next year as we were in 2003, IE with large forces on the border some of which are ready to move at a moments notice.

[Crateria]

I don't think we necessarily failed. I suspect Iraq will become a mega-lebanon, a pseudo-democracy with a pseudo-government split between the various religious and ethnic factions which can "sort of" keep the country's sovereignty intact. Without an Israel on the border they should even keep the equivalent of Hezbollah from settling down.

Keep the equivalent of Hezbollah from settling down? Are you crazy?

Iraq borders Saudi Arabia and Iran, two Islamic fundamentalist states who will be intensifying the conflict there due to the mutual hatred between Shias and Sunnis, not to mention the bad blood between the two due to Iran seeing KSA as (rightfully) a US puppet, thus an enemy. Don't forget that both sides have huge amounts of armed, violent followers in Iraq who will gladly pick up the pace as well as be supported by the oil wealth of both nations. If anything Iraq's troubles are just beginning.

[K. A. Pital]

No, that's actually good news. Although the new Iraq doesn't look that promising, not that the old Iraq was much better after Saddam's idiotic landgrab in Kuwait. At least Iraq can now take a shot at regaining real sovereignity.

[Crateria]

No, that's actually good news. Although the new Iraq doesn't look that promising, not that the old Iraq was much better after Saddam's idiotic landgrab in Kuwait. At least Iraq can now take a shot at regaining real sovereignity.

Who are you and what have you done with Stas Bush?!

Why would they have a better shot at soverignty? Iraq is now weakened by the US-led invasion. It doesn't have the huge amounts of material given to them during Iran-Iraq War and the whole country is split apart into sects and armed groups.

[Kryten]

He means a better shot compared to the current situation, not the pre-invasion situation.

[Block]

I don't think we necessarily failed. I suspect Iraq will become a mega-lebanon, a pseudo-democracy with a pseudo-government split between the various religious and ethnic factions which can "sort of" keep the country's sovereignty intact. Without an Israel on the border they should even keep the equivalent of Hezbollah from settling down.

Hezbollah's already there according to my teacher who went home to visit for the first time in 30 years during the spring. She, who had fled Iraq under a death sentence from Saddam, said that Iraq was worse off now than under Saddam.

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect that's more a function of bomb damage and occupation than it is politics- without an outright takeover by a Taliban-style government, it would be nearly impossible for Iraq to be worse off politically.

The problem for Iraq today is the power of economic and military chaos in the country (from being invaded and occupied) to make political change irrelevant. Creating a democracy doesn't help much if democracy comes hand in hand with endless waves of car bombs.

[Block]

I suspect that's more a function of bomb damage and occupation than it is politics- without an outright takeover by a Taliban-style government, it would be nearly impossible for Iraq to be worse off politically.

The problem for Iraq today is the power of economic and military chaos in the country (from being invaded and occupied) to make political change irrelevant. Creating a democracy doesn't help much if democracy comes hand in hand with endless waves of car bombs.

No, it's not. Women's rights took massive strides backwards, she had to wear a head covering to feel safe. Secularism was fairly strong under Saddam due to his repression of the clerics, without that things have backslid quite a bit. Saddam was bad, there's no arguing that, but a lack of order on the streets, which still exists, is worse.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh, I'm not saying Iraq is better off now. I'm just saying it's going to have a "functional" democracy in the same way Lebanon has since the 1980s, and therefore the objective of creating a functional Iraqi state has not quite "failed".

[Crateria]

I suspect that's more a function of bomb damage and occupation than it is politics- without an outright takeover by a Taliban-style government, it would be nearly impossible for Iraq to be worse off politically.

The problem for Iraq today is the power of economic and military chaos in the country (from being invaded and occupied) to make political change irrelevant. Creating a democracy doesn't help much if democracy comes hand in hand with endless waves of car bombs.

Iraq never had a strong democratic tradition. That alone will spell the end for an attempt at democracy. I didn't think of Iraq's government as a democracy anyway- it just seemed to be a psuedo-democracy with the Coalition tugging at the strings and bombing anybody who opposed the occupation (not including the collaborators who pretend to) Additionally the bombing of Iraq has destroyed much of the infrastructure. Combine these elements and you have the ripe potential for rival Taliban-style governments in various parts of Iraq, both Shiite or Sunni.

Duchess, if you count Lebanon as a functional democracy, you're not understanding what's happening there. Lebanon is essentially a Hezbollah-led military dictatorship. If people disagree with them then Hezbollah and their allies beat in their doors and crush their skulls. Simply because the dissidents tend to be armed doesn't mean they can put up a good defense.

[Samuel]

He means a better shot compared to the current situation, not the pre-invasion situation.

I think he meant that now the embargo is lifted. From 1990 to 2003 we banned all trade with Iraq. It is supposed to have killed somewhere between a hundred thousand and over a million people. There was food rationing and most of the deaths came from a massive increase in infant mortality.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I suspect that's more a function of bomb damage and occupation than it is politics- without an outright takeover by a Taliban-style government, it would be nearly impossible for Iraq to be worse off politically.

The problem for Iraq today is the power of economic and military chaos in the country (from being invaded and occupied) to make political change irrelevant. Creating a democracy doesn't help much if democracy comes hand in hand with endless waves of car bombs.

Iraq never had a strong democratic tradition. That alone will spell the end for an attempt at democracy. I didn't think of Iraq's government as a democracy anyway- it just seemed to be a psuedo-democracy with the Coalition tugging at the strings and bombing anybody who opposed the occupation (not including the collaborators who pretend to) Additionally the bombing of Iraq has destroyed much of the infrastructure. Combine these elements and you have the ripe potential for rival Taliban-style governments in various parts of Iraq, both Shiite or Sunni.

Duchess, if you count Lebanon as a functional democracy, you're not understanding what's happening there. Lebanon is essentially a Hezbollah-led military dictatorship. If people disagree with them then Hezbollah and their allies beat in their doors and crush their skulls. Simply because the dissidents tend to be armed doesn't mean they can put up a good defense.

Since when did I call Lebanon a functional democracy? Anyway, if you arbitrarily define democracy to not include places where people get their skulls beat in by mobs, that would disqualify the USA up until the segregationists were definitively broken in the south in the 1960s, and Britain until the violence in Northern Ireland was brought under control in 2000.

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect that's more a function of bomb damage and occupation than it is politics- without an outright takeover by a Taliban-style government, it would be nearly impossible for Iraq to be worse off politically.

The problem for Iraq today is the power of economic and military chaos in the country (from being invaded and occupied) to make political change irrelevant. Creating a democracy doesn't help much if democracy comes hand in hand with endless waves of car bombs.

No, it's not. Women's rights took massive strides backwards, she had to wear a head covering to feel safe. Secularism was fairly strong under Saddam due to his repression of the clerics, without that things have backslid quite a bit. Saddam was bad, there's no arguing that, but a lack of order on the streets, which still exists, is worse.

Lack of order in the country falls under "military chaos."

The current political regime in Iraq is better than Saddam Hussein, but as I said, it doesn't matter if there are gangs roving the streets and the regime can't stop them. So, yes, moot point- just me musing on things, I guess.

It's worth remembering that a bad excuse for a democracy, one which is unable to achieve the basic goals of keeping bandits and rebels under control, can be worse for the average citizen than outright tyranny.