Will The U.S. Withdraw From Iraq?

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

Will The U.S. Withdraw From Iraq? (posted from http://sane-ramblings.blogspot.com/2010/04/will-us-withdraw-from-iraq.html )

To many Americans, the Iraq War is nearly over because it is often invisible in the U.S. media. But at a lower level the death and destruction continues, as does the 7 year U.S. occupation of Iraq.

If as announced, the U.S. does withdraw 50,000 troops this summer, it will still have 50,000 there, plus thousands of "contractors." If you think the U.S. will withdraw all of its troops after building massive military bases and the Green Zone in Iraq, you may want to rethink that position.

The U.S. military doesn't leave. 65 years after World War ll ended, the U.S. still has 40,000 troops in Germany and 47,000 in Japan, and 57 years after the Korean War ended 37,000 in South Korea. 19 years after the Gulf War ended , it still has 5,000 troops in Saudi Arabia, an affront to many Muslims, and a cause of 9/11.

Please note that every one of those nations is financially stronger than the U.S., and has loaned the U.S. government large sums of money so it can pay its bills.

What will it take for the U.S. to withdraw all of its troops from across the globe? A U.S. financial collapse, so it can no longer pay for its military empire. It would also be forced to close most of its 747 foreign military bases and slash its weapons programs. When it does, the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief.

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Of course! After all, we withdrew from Germany and Japan right?

:D

[frebrd]

13. That's exactly what I was going to say!

:D

Edited to add:
I don't expect to see the U.S. out of Iraq in my lifetime.

[laughingliberal]

2. Have we extracted all the profit we can from it? nt

[Ozymanithrax]

3. The plan has never been to withdraw all troops.

They want the same type of military preseance maintined in Germany.

[tekisui]

5. The plan has been to remove ALL troops by 2011:

The plan will withdraw most of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq by the summer of next year, leaving 35,000 to 50,000 behind with the limited missions of training and advising Iraq security forces, hunting terrorist cells and protecting U.S. civilian and military personnel. Those "transitional forces" will leave by 2011 in accordance with a strategic agreement negotiated by President George W. Bush before he left office.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can," Obama told the Marines. "By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

He added: "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-28/news/17189369_1_troop-buildup-iraq-military-deaths

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

6. What about the contractors?

and the contractors security forces?

[Igel]

21. Some are.

Those may stay, since some of them are attached to the embassy there.

Many of them are non-Americans. A lot of the "mercenary contractors" have been doing things like building electrical grid, water treatment plants, and the like. That is to say, they were contractors.

And since a lot of them are Iraqis, well, I certainly hope that we're not forced evacuate them someplace when we exit Iraq. Many of them probably want to stay in their home country.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. The operative term is combat mission...U.S. troops in Germany, Japan,

Scotland, England, and many other countries are not there on a combat mission.

I hope that really happens, but I will believe it when the last soldier leaves for Afghanistan.

[laughingliberal]

10. So...it depends on what the meaning of ALL is?

He added: "I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

[tekisui]

11. Not only that, but I believe the Agreement bush signed with the

Iraqis requires ALL troops out by 2011.

I can't wait hear the sales job on why we'll stay.

[Ozymanithrax]

20. I do hope that forces will be withdrawn, but I remain skeptical until they are all gone.

I feel the same way about "Don't ask don't tell." We were told it would end. There is that promise. Until it ends, I remain skeptical.

[kenny blankenship]

9. Yes, however, if you cast your mind back to the time just before and after the Invasion

50,000 troops is about how many Donald Rumsfeld thought would be required to conquer Iraq from outside its borders.

What can a "limited" force of 50,000 do -parked outside the capital?

No government of Iraq will be allowed to imagine itself sovereign and able to chart its own foreign policy ever again.

[4lbs]

12. He was right, and wrong.

Rumsfeld was right in that it would require only 50,000 troops to defeat Iraq's military and overthrow Hussein.

That was never in doubt. Iraq's military was a mere shadow of itself from even the 1990 Gulf War. A single U.S. division of just 12,000 combat troops with a few dozen tanks could have beaten them.

*** HOWEVER ***

Where he and Eric Shenseki differed was in the number required to ** HOLD ** the country afterwards.

Rumsfeld thought it could be done with as little as 100,000 to 150,000.

Shenseki said the number was more like 500,000 at the minimum. He said that less would invite chaos and pockets of fighting for years since we wouldn't have enough troops to maintain the peace. Shenseki was right and Rumsfeld was wrong on that one.

The Bush admin and Pentagon finally tacitly admitted to Shenseki being right when they came up with the surge plan.

[kenny blankenship]

16. So back to the point - what would that imply about the 50K "residual force"?

and the supposed sovereignty of Iraq?

We're talking about leaving behind a force roughly equal to that which was initially proposed as sufficient to invade Iraq and topple its government. And then patting ourselves on the back for "leaving Iraq" at the same time.

Is this honest?

Can Iraq be truly called a sovereign, unoccupied nation, with such a dagger held at its throat?

[4lbs]

18. Well, the residual force is supposed to be just there as consultants.

The Iraqi army and police are supposed to do the majority of the grunt work in handling anything.

However, we all know how well things have gone as planned there from 2003 through 2008.

50,000 U.S. non-combat troops supporting hundreds of thousands of Iraqi police and tens of thousands of Iraqi army, works in theory. However, in a war torn country, theory and reality are sometimes mutually exclusive.

Also, that 'non-combat' designation just means that their primary purpose isn't to automatically engage in conflict, but rather to let the Iraqi army/police do that. Nevertheless, if things get really dicey, those troops can be turned into combat troops relatively quickly. That's the main concern I have.

[Igel]

22. Or at least the same kind of

presence that we have at Subic Bay.

After all, we built that really nice permanent base there. Since it's permanent, I guess it's still a US naval base. I mean, that's what "permanent" means, right? And far be it from the militaristic hegemonic US to actually let a smaller country drive us out. The very idea is unthinkable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay#Closure

[tekisui]

4. I am not sure we will withdraw all the combat troops by this summer.

Much less all the troops any time soon.

[kgnu_fan]

7. Can we afford to stay?????

[HughMoran]

14. Never ending stimulus package

We'll never leave and it'll employ another 40,000 troops indefinitely. And nobody will bat a eye.

[mistertrickster]

15. No shit. Given how Obama is breaking promises with impunity, I'm really worried about

this one too . . .

[SmileyRose]

25. Bull

Obama promised to "end all major combat operations" by a certain date. He didn't say anything about MINOR combat operations, security operations, intelligence operations..........

Yes, he chose his words carefully to give you the impression he was pulling out completely and yet never actually promised to do so.

[mistertrickster]

26. He chose his words careful to give an impression he had no intention of keeping.

Wow. That's way better than lying . . . (sarcasm).

:)

[Mari333]

17. no. it is our job to protect huge corporate oilfields with mercenaries

and soldiers, paid for with our tax dollars.


and no one will ever be held accountable for war crimes.

[cutlassmama]

19. +1000

[tavalon]

23. Has the oil dried up?

If not, the answer is no.

[quaker bill]

24. yes we will

There is no SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) after June 2011. What this means is that our troops will be subject to prosecution under local law after June 2011. No SOFA, no troops. We don't have troops anywhere without a SOFA.

I would bet my last dollar that they are coming out. There have been plenty of car bombs of late and no talk whatsoever about changing the withdrawl schedule. Barack wants to run in 2012 on ending this war. The troops will be out.