U.S. and Iraqi Interests May Work Against Pullout

[Jeffersons Ghost]

U.S. and Iraqi Interests May Work Against Pullout
By TIM ARANGO

BAGHDAD — In a recent speech President Obama took credit for delivering on his promise to end the official combat mission on schedule, and vowed to meet America’s next deadline of moving all American forces off Iraqi soil by the end of 2011. “As agreed to with the Iraqi government, we will maintain a transitional force until we remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of next year,” the president said.

The reality in Iraq may defy that deadline, because many American and Iraqi officials deem the American presence to be in each nation’s interest. “For a very long period of time we’re going to be on the ground, even if it’s solely in support of its U.S. weapons systems,” said Ryan C. Crocker, who was the American ambassador in Baghdad until 2009 and helped to negotiate the agreement that tethers the two countries and mandates that all American troops leave Iraq by the end of 2011.

Even as that deadline was negotiated, he said, a longer-lasting, though significantly smaller, presence of American forces had always been considered to be likely.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

[liberal N proud]

1. Have to protect the treasure - OIL!

The decision will bear directly on the payoff America could yet reap for all its spent blood — more than 4,000 American lives — and treasure, in the form of a democratic ally in a combustible region that would be a check on Iranian power and offer American access to Iraq’s vast oil reserves.

It reveals what the war was about in the first place.

[unhappycamper]

2. The invasion and occupation was originally named 'Operation Iraqi Liberation'.

That was also a hint.