US to remove all its forces from Iraq by 2011: Biden

[OhioChick]

Source: Times of India

PTI, Apr 20, 2010, 04.48am IST

WASHINGTON: US Vice President Joe Biden has said that the Obama Administration is committed to end its combat mission in Iraq by August this year and remove all of its troops from the country as scheduled by the end of 2011.

"We remain committed to end our combat mission in Iraq this summer, by the end of August 2010, and in accordance with the US-Iraqi security agreement that was signed a couple of years ago to remove all US forces from Iraq by the end of 2011," Biden told reporters in his remarks at the White House.

"As we complete this security transition, we will continue to work to build a lasting partnership with Iraqi people and their government based on the many shared interests we have that go beyond the military cooperation we've had of late, including the economy, education, cultural exchanges, and the development of a strong economy for Iraq," he said.

Earlier, Biden yesterday commended Iraqi forces in taking the lead in the killing of top two al-Qaida leaders in Iraq.



Read more: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/US-to-remove-all-its-forces-from-Iraq-by-2011-Biden-/articleshow/5834083.cms

[PSPS]

1. Article belies the headline

Headline: US to remove all its forces from Iraq by 2011

Article: "...by the end of 2011."

To me, that's "by 2012." Of course, it doesn't matter because it will never happen anyway.

[bemildred]

2. Well, we are not in Vietnam anymore, so it's possible.

Not saying everyone is going to like it.

[zipplewrath]

4. We'll see

Several possibilities and some include things like troops remaing but not "combat" troops. And of course there's always Blackwater. There's always the "fighting Al Queada" excuse. Gates has always been a bit circumspect on this issue. We just won't know until it actually happens. There are reasons and incentives though for them to truly leave, so anything is possible.

[tekisui]

6. Will ALL US combat troops leave if their is no functional government?

If sectarian violence rises?

If more comes out about Maliki's Sunni torture prisons and inflames the country?

Civil war?

[zipplewrath]

50. Already is

It is a civil war. There already is a rise in sectarian violence (well, a rise over the very recent time, nothing compared to prior to the Anbar Awakening). What will be interesting to see is when the Iraqi "security" forces become the instigators of violence, will we still leave?

[Igel]

9. Maybe it's a South Asian English thing.

It would be nice to be out, conditions permitting, by the end of 2011.

The "couple of years ago" hedge is interesting demoting of the agreement, though. It's fairly specific:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf
1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than
December 31, 2011.
2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and
localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility
for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than
June 30, 2009....
Signed in duplicate in Baghdad on this 17th day of November, 2008, in the English and
Arabic languages, each text being equally authentic.

[USA_1]

3. Should Have Withdrawn By NOW

Send the bill for the war's cost to Bush.

[Synicus Maximus]

53. Bush started the war but Congressis the one who funded the war.

The members should be sent the bill.

[tekisui]

5. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Robb]

7. Given your track record, I find your skepticism reassuring.

I look forward to the troops coming home. :)

[tekisui]

8. As do I.

[RainMickey]

10. Sure, and close Gitmo by 20 Jan 2010, right? Assclown n/t

[pjt7]

11. Let's hope it gets done

.

[RainMickey]

13. You're not tired of "hope" yet?

I thought he told us during the campaign that he'd get us out of Iraq immediately. Instead he's now following the plan the war criminal bush put in place. How nice. You people are too easy.

[4lbs]

15. Where did he say we'd get out "immediately"? He never used that word.

He always said all combat troops by August 2010 and all forces by the end of 2011.

[RainMickey]

17. I sure don't recall him saying he'd get us out using Bush's

plan of several years. I'll go back and find what he said. Bet I'll be proven right too.

[4lbs]

19. Good luck.

I've watched all his debates multiple times and his campaign speeches many times.

He always said a gradual draw-down of forces in Iraq, over 16 to 18 months.

[RainMickey]

21. He's been in office 14 months and they're talking about another

year, right? No wait.....THE END OF 2011. You need math lessons.

[4lbs]

22. And you need comprehension lessons. He said COMBAT TROOPS gone in 16 to 18 months.

What is August 2010? Almost 18 months AFTER his inauguration.

There were 140,000 troops in Iraq when he took office on January 20, 2009.

As of last month there were 100,000. That means 40,000 fewer.

There will be 50,000 to 60,000 troops leaving by the end of August 2010. That's the remaining combat troops.

This will leave about 40,000 to 50,000 non-combat troops to continue training the Iraqi army and police for another year.

Then all troops, these 40,000 to 50,000 remaining, gone by the end of 2011.

[RainMickey]

33. I knew there'd be a renaming of the troops in there somewhere.

I'll be back in September of this year as the stories appear of our "non-combat" troops being engaged in fighting.

Some people will believe anything.

[No Elephants]

51. Is that different from the timetable Bush had announced?

[RainMickey]

23. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. SEE HERE

Complicating these media efforts to find a shift in Obama's Iraq policy is that he has been saying virtually the same thing on Iraq withdrawal throughout the campaign: that he wants to have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office,

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3660

Combat troops OUT OF IRAQ within 16 months of taking office!!!!!! NOT STARTING TO GET PREPARED TO GET PREPARED TO MAYBE START WITHDRAWING THEM IN 18 MONTHS.....MAYBE.

He's using Bush' plan. Admit it.

[4lbs]

24. Where does this say "immediately"? You said you'd find proof he said troops out of Iraq immediately

This doesn't do that.


During the debates he kept saying "16 to 18 months".

During the campaign he kept saying "16 to 18 months".

Nothing's changed.

[RainMickey]

27. Uh, if you're going to have all combat troops out in 16 months from taking office..

...it stands to reason that he would immediately start winding down that operation, would it not? Has he wound it down? Now, at month 14 he's talking about talking another 18 months to get done what he said would be done in the first 16 months.

Gitmo? Closed by 20 Jan 2010.

You can put on the knee pads if you like, I'm not playing. GET US THE HELL OUT OF THEIR MR. PRESIDENT LIKE YOU PROMISED US IN ORDER TO GET OUR VOTES.

[4lbs]

28. So, your main complaint is that the combat troops will be gone in 18 months instead of 16?

That's it?

You are whining about a difference of 2 months?


Okay.....

[RainMickey]

29. Reading comprehension problems? He said...

he'd have them out in 16 months of taking office....not a year and a half later. Remember, he's been in office 14 months already and they're just now getting around to starting the drawdown and will finish it by the end of next year....unless today's announcement is another crock.

[4lbs]

30. Count 16 months from January 20, 2009.

16 months from January 20, 2009 is July 20, 2010.

1/20/2009 to 7/20/2010.


The combat troops will be gone by the end of August 2010.

That's 8/31/2010, or about 6 weeks later than 16 months.

Wow. Certainly enough to get all twisted and angry about.

[RainMickey]

31. So the combat troops will be gone by the end of August 2010?

Funny, here's what the VP had to say in the article above.

"We remain committed to end our combat mission in Iraq this summer, by the end of August 2010, and in accordance with the US-Iraqi security agreement that was signed a couple of years ago to remove all US forces from Iraq by the end of 2011," Biden told reporters in his remarks at the White House.


So, I guess those combat troops they leave behind (to be withdrawn by the end of 2011) will be renamed? Perhaps, officer friendlies, or something like that would qualify.

[4lbs]

34. Yes they will be.

Once again, see if you can follow:

When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009 there were a grand total of 140,000 troops in Iraq.

A year later, there were 100,000 troops in Iraq. That's a decrease of 40,000 troops, the majority of which were combat.

By the end of August 2010, all combat troops will be gone. There will still be a force of up to 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq. That means 50,000 to 60,000 combat troops will be leaving and gone by the end of August 2010.

Once again, that still leaves the "residual" force of up to 50,000 non-combat troops.

So, what the heck is the difference between a combat troop and a non-combat troop? Mainly in their primary mission and directive.

Troops that train the Iraqi army and police, and run supplies back and forth, aren't designated as combat. If they are fired upon by insurgents, they obviously will fire back to defend themselves, however they won't pursue those insurgents beyond the immediate area to capture or kill them. Nor will they be tasked to go out hunting for insurgents. That will be for the Iraqi army to do.

Then, these non-combat troops, up to 50,000 in number, will be gone by the end of 2011.

The gradual troop withdrawal will look like this:

140,000 -> 100,000 -> (40,000 to 50,000) -> 0

[RainMickey]

36. What happened to this idea? The one you said he never made..

...during the campaign.

Sen Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field, proposed for the first time setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, as part of a broader plan aimed at bolstering the freshman senator's foreign policy credentials.

Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. The date falls within the parameters offered by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended the removal of combat troops by the first quarter of next year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

[4lbs]

37. And you are bringing up an article from January 2007, before he even announced his candidacy.

Watch the 3 debates he had with McCain.

He said "16 to 18 months" in the removal of combat troops, multiple times.

Surely you were paying attention then?

[RainMickey]

38. Sen Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field

[4lbs]

39. From an article from 2007.

That bill he proposed in January 2007 called for the removal of all combat troops in Iraq by the end of March 31, 2008.

That's 1/2007 to 3/31/2008. Almost 14 months.

Even when he was a U.S. Senator he realized you couldn't just "immediately" leave. He called for a nearly 14 month timetable for all combat troops to leave.


Barack Obama didn't officially declare his candidacy until February 10, 2007 in Springfield, IL.


Once again, what are you pissed about? He maintained a gradual drawdown of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. 14 months, 16 - 18 months.

There was never any "immediate" withdrawal of troops.

[RainMickey]

42. Oh, I see what you mean.

Who could have known a month in advance of his announcement that he'd run for president?

Say what you want. The US under President Barack Obama will have a military presence in Iraq at least until the end of the 3rd year of his presidency. Maybe you're okay with that. I and a lot of others who voted for him are not pleased with that.

[4lbs]

43. He always said a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat troops.

He has been since January 2007.

You must not have paid attention closely.

Remember him saying "one or two brigades per month" during the campaign and the debates? I do.

Remember him saying "16 to 18 months" during the campaign and the debates? I do.

He never said "immediate withdrawal".

[RainMickey]

44. Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq

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.

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.

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

Cute, right. The guy lies and some folks believe him.

[4lbs]

45. Nothing's changed. So those troops will be re-designated as non-combat.

That means their primary mission and directive won't be to hunt or fight insurgents.

They will be to train the Iraqi army and police.

Those BCTs will be needed to train the Iraqi army in combat techniques.

It will be the Iraqi army that engages the insurgents as much as possible.

They, the BCTs, will be part of the up to 50,000 residual force.

[RainMickey]

46. If that soothes you, I'm pleased for you. Personally I don't like someone

pissing down my neck and telling me it's just rain.

[RainMickey]

26. And another right wing source, The New York Times & The World Socialist Website

While Obama "electrified and motivated his liberal base by vowing to ‘end the war' in Iraq," the Times states, as the transition advances he is now singing a very different tune. The president-elect is "making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months."

As for Obama's 16-month deadline for withdrawing "combat" forces from Iraq, the Times reports that Pentagon planners are currently drawing up projections for up to 70,000 US troops continuing the occupation not only well past May 2010, but also long after the supposed December 31, 2011 deadline for a full withdrawal established under the recently concluded status of forces agreement reached between Washington and its client regime in Baghdad. It is generally believed that this deadline will be annulled in subsequent negotiations.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/dec2008/pers-d06.shtml

[RainMickey]

32. And check out this whopper from the campaign trail.

You must not have been watching that night.

Sen Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field, proposed for the first time setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, as part of a broader plan aimed at bolstering the freshman senator's foreign policy credentials.

"Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. The date falls within the parameters offered by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended the removal of combat troops by the first quarter of next year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

You still wonder why some of us voted for him and are now pissed?

[4lbs]

35. So, again, what are you pissed about? This was from January 2007.

That would be a month before he even declared his candidacy.

He said "16 to 18 months" for combat troops all throughout the 2008 campaign.

Once again, watch the 3 debates he had with McCain. He states it plainly there.

[RainMickey]

40. What I'm pissed about is simple....

...we were lead to believe repeatedly that we'd get the hell out of Iraq, and quit spending blood and treasure in the horrible, bloody, immoral war that never had to happen.

If playing word games....combat versus non-combat....is fine for you, then knock yourself out. It isn't for me.

The fact remains that after almost 3 years in office, Obama will still have Americans in harm's way in Iraq. I'm not good with that.

[4lbs]

41. Well, then you weren't paying attention. He was never for the immediate withdrawal of all combat

troops from Iraq.

That bill he proposed in January 2007 as a U.S. Senator called for all U.S. combat troops in Iraq to be gone by March 31, 2008.

That's 1/2007 -> 3/31/2008. Almost 14 months.

As a Presidential candidate, he repeatedly said gradual withdrawal, about one or two brigades per month, for about 16 months, once he took office.

He took office on January 20, 2009 (1/20/2009).

16 months from that is July 20, 2010 (7/20/2010).

So far, the 140,000 troops when he took office is now 100,000 or less.

The current plan is all U.S combat troops gone by the end of August 2010 (8/31/2010). There will still be a residual non-combat force of up to 50,000 lasting until the end of 2011 (12/31/2011).

He's been pretty consistent over the last 3 years, unless you want to quibble over 6 weeks (August 31, 2010 instead of July 20, 2010) for combat troop removal.

[4lbs]

12. You can blame Congress for Gitmo. They didn't want to fund the closing and relocations.

The same Congress that took it's sweet time on the HCR bill and delayed 6 months longer than President Obama wanted.

Remember this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826649/

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/1584623,CST-NWS-sweet21.article

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123343764

[RainMickey]

14. Bullshit. You're the president. Close the damned thing...

.....dammit. You promised you would and now use weak excuses for not doing what you said you'd do. Either that or it was a bald-faced lie from the beginning. Neither option is very appealing.

[4lbs]

16. It seems trying to have a reasonable discussion with you is impossible.

The President is not a dictator.

You might have grown up thinking he was because of the crap that Dubya and Cheney did, but quike frankly the President needs Congress to FUND things regarding the military.

Base closings are part of that.

Once Gitmo closes, then what? What do we do with those hundreds of detainees? Just leave them in Cuba? Where would the money come from to send them wherever they wanted to go?

[RainMickey]

20. I didn't say he was a dictator so don't put words in my mouth.

And Congress? Booohoooo

Why the hell didn't Obama take to the airwaves and convince Americans that Gitmo needed to be closed, AND WOULD BE CLOSED within one year as he promised with that executive order he signed on his first day in office. Turns out that plan was worth the paper it was written on.

Part of the reason he won the election was because of promises like closing Gitmo and getting the hell out of that horrible, immoral, bloody war in Iraq.

But I guess once you're in office, screw those who put you there.

[RC]

18. Correct! Obama is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

[Newest Reality]

25. I can't help but think about all the US bases built there

as a part of a strategic staging ground.

Do those get abandoned or handed over? Who mans them if all of our troops are gone?

[RainMickey]

52. Handed over? Abandoned? LOL

We'll still have troops there, combat troops in fact. They might be renamed TDU's (Terrorist Disposal Units) but they'll still be there. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to pass me whatever it is they're smoking.

[truthisfreedom]

47. But but but... if we tell them when we're going to pull out, the enemy will just

take over! WE CAN'T CUT AND RUN LIKE SURRENDER MONKEYS!!!

[Lasher]

48. "End the combat mission in Iraq."

Does that mean there will be no more than 50,000 US soldiers left in Iraq by the end of August this year? Because that's what Obama promised in February 2009.

[TheWatcher]

49. Raiders to Go Undefeated in Division, Secure Homefield for 2010 Playoffs, and win Super Bowl XLV by

wide margin, with QB JeMarcus Russell also to win MVP of League, Playoffs, and Super Bowl.

That scenario has just about as much chance of happening as the one in the OP.

Less Than Zero.

We are NEVER leaving Iraq.

[Mari333]

54. we illegally went there to secure HUGE oil fields for corporations and NO ONE will be held

accountable.


millions died for NOTHING.


and the soldiers will all be sent to another illegal occupation called AFGHANISTAN

TO SECURE MORE CORPORATE MONEY AND PROFITS


ITS A SCAM. ALWAYS HAS BEEN.