David Sirota: As troops pull out of Iraq, Obama plans more combat forces elsewhere in Middle East

[Cali_Democrat]

What “withdrawal” means for an empire
As troops pull out of Iraq, Obama plans more combat forces elsewhere in the Middle East
By David Sirota

Last week here at Salon, we had a good back and forth about whether America is an empire, and why even pondering that question is so taboo. Quite serendipitously, our debate came just before this big report in the New York Times over the weekend:

The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait…

In addition to negotiations over maintaining a ground combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is considering sending more naval warships through international waters in the region.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?pagewanted=all

Indefinite military occupations of resource-rich regions is one of the hallmarks of empire — indeed, if we saw another country do that, we would almost certainly refer to it as an unacceptable imperial move. Of course, the justification of the Obama administration’s announcement doesn’t hew to the standard lexicon of imperialism; it applies our modern newspeak in an attempt to promote the fallacy that the United States acts only out of selfless benevolence.

There’s lots of talk, for instance, about regional “stability” — a buzzword designed to downplay democratic ideals and rationalize America’s continued support of the brutal dictatorships that serve as our client governments. We’re also hearing the old War on Terror tropes about how we must stay in the Middle East indefinitely and not show weakness by supposedly cutting and running. We’re not an empire, these voices insist. It’s just that “the complete withdrawal of our forces… is likely to be viewed as a strategic victory by our enemies!” as 12 Republicans write in a absurd new letter.

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/what_withdrawal_means_for_an_empire/

[rfranklin]

1. Uh, didn't Bush sign off on this agreement?

Not that I like want President Obama is doing militarily but these Republicans are just effin liars.

Here's what the right wingers were saying before--

"The one time Obama should be referencing George Bush, and, nary a mention
President Barack Obama told disabled veterans in Atlanta on Monday that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq “on schedule,” by Aug. 31.

But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008.

The agreement, which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011....


He takes credit for what others accomplished, and blames others for his own mistakes. He came to the forefront of the Democrat party by giving an anti-Iraq war speech, he’s whined about it ever since, he’s voted to defund the war, he was against the Surge, and now he wants to take credit for the framework that Bush put in place.


http://rightwingnews.com/iraq/obama-takes-credit-for-bushs-iraq-withdrawal-timeline/

[rug]

2. I know someone in the National guard who's going to Kuwait in January.

He's trained as a combat medic.

[FrenchieCat]

3. This pisses me off to no end!

All troops should be back in America.....
Gone from Europe, Asia, and of course the ME
and wherever else they are hanging out!
They should all be back here, without exceptions!
We need a "100% Peace" President, and we need it now!

I've decided that I may not vote in the upcoming elections of 2012....
cause I can't stand it anymore. Thank you for helping me decide.
I couldn't have come to this conclusion without your daily information....
along with Mr. Sirota's help as well as all of the posters that point out
all of President Obama's flaws day in and day out!
I care sooo much that I'm ready to not care at all about whatever happens, period!

Whew! Already I feel much better about the future of this nation and
my own personal future...so Again, thank you! You are making a difference! :hi:

[Cali_Democrat]

5. "We need a "100% Peace" President, and we need it now!"

Amen to that, Frenchie.

[FrenchieCat]

7. I think not voting or having absolutely no enthusiasm to do so will help our side with that,

and you are doing a great job helping getting that done!
Hats off to you! :patriot:

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. FC, I understand the urge, but why don't we stop feeding it? It's not even about debate anymore.

Let it drop. ;)

[frylock]

15. what's to debate? the people who knew troops would just be shuffled around..

were mocked. now they're to be mocked again because they are proven correct.

[totodeinhere]

29. The OP did not advocate not voting. However, if Obama is keeping troops in that region I want to

know about it. Knowledge is power.

[frylock]

6. and then they mock you

[FrenchieCat]

8. And then you tell the end result of some folks efforts, and they think its about mocking.....

:crazy:

[frylock]

16. the end result is that troops AREN'T coming home..

this was predicted.

[FrenchieCat]

18. The troops are coming home as predicted......

The fact that a presence will be in Kuwait doesn't mean that 40,000 troops will move from Iraq to Kuwait...and you know that. In fact, there have been troops in Kuwait for a long time now, and Kuwait is not Iraq......

You are moving the goalpost; conflating Iraq with Kuwait for your personal reasons, when it isn't required. Troops in the Gulf region of the ME does not mean the Iraq war is NOT over, whether you like it or not.

[frylock]

21. the GOAL is to get the fuck out..

always has been.

[tblue]

4. Gotta keep the MIC gravy train rollin'.

Pitiful. He exhausts me.

[woo me with science]

10. Well, of course he does.

SOCOM. Bush- 60 countries. Obama 120 countries by end of 2011
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2118912&mesg_id=2122224

Obama agrees with Panetta, endorses Medicare ‘adjustments’ over defense cuts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1692899

Pentagon Looking Safe from the Super Committee's Cuts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2161681

Nuclear powers plan weapons spending spree, report finds
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5042984

The Pentagon's Cookie Jar
http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/10/31/the-pentagons-cookie-jar/

US Drone Base in Ethiopia is Operational
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5040693

Mercenary forces to double in Iraq after 2011
http://waronyou.com/topics/u-s-to-double-mercenary-forces-in-iraq-after-2011-military-pullout

Panetta Starts Singing Contractors’ Tune After Closed-Door Meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1964568

Panetta: Cutting too deep would devastate military
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5025964

A Top Senate Dem Says Iran Plot May Be Act Of War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5024359

[great white snark]

13. Nice collection of misquotes.

The title doesn't always match the facts.

Sorry to interrupt your outrage.

[woo me with science]

14. "Misquotes"

:rofl:

[RC]

11. Tell me again why Obama should not be Primaried.

[MjolnirTime]

19. Because primarying him would be stupid.

[RC]

22. It might put a real Democrat in the White House

We can't be having that now can we?

Wars might stop.
The economy might recover.
Social Security and Medicare could be pulled off the table.
Single Payer, Universal Health Care might be implemented.
Financial criminals might go to prison.
Taxes might be raised on those most able to pay them.
And so on. So yeah, let's keep Obama and the status quo.

[MjolnirTime]

25. You are deluded.

And if you hadn't noticed, Obama just ended the War in Iraq.
Not good enough for you?

[RC]

27. Actually, no he did not.

The Iraqi's kicked us out. Obama is just moving the troops to elsewhere in the Middle East. Most are NOT coming home.

Please pay attention.

[ProSense]

12. So

"David Sirota: As troops pull out of Iraq, Obama plans more combat forces elsewhere in Middle East"

...Sirota repackaging the NYT story means it's still not bullshit?

I mean, suddenly the outrage is supposed to be about troops stationed in the ME?

Wasn't the outrage about the Iraq war?

President Obama ended the Iraq war. Time to search for another bullshit angle to spark outrage: there will be troops in the ME.

[frylock]

17. they staying over there for free?

like the cost of keeping them over there was never an issue, right?

[ProSense]

24. Breaking!!!!!

President Obama still ended the Iraq war.

U.S. Will Maintain Ties, Presence in Persian Gulf

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2011 – The United States will maintain a forward-deployed presence in the Persian Gulf region, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said here today.

The United States, he said, has had troops in that part of the world since World War II.

“Our goal is to promote stability and we expect to continue to have strong military-to-military relations with countries in the region including Iraq, to include Kuwait, to include others,” Little said.

The number of troops serving in the region and where they will be based remains to be decided, said Navy Capt. John Kirby, deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations.

“We’re still working through the decision process,” Kirby said. “There’s been no final decision made on any additional force presence anywhere.”

Little stressed that formal plans have not been submitted to President Barack Obama or Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta.

“Whatever decisions are made about force posture moving forward will be based upon our security commitments we have made and will continue to honor in that region,” Kirby said.

The U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf region is “not aimed at any one particular threat,” Kirby added, “but rather aimed towards our very serious commitments to security and stability in that part of the world.”

The United States has a range of interests and partners in the Persian Gulf region, Little said, noting the number of U.S. forces in the region has waxed and waned in response to events since 1945.

Outraged that U.S. troops are still in the ME? Take it up with the last ten U.S. Presidents.

Recap of Breaking News: The Iraq war is over!

[frylock]

26. they staying over there for free?

[totodeinhere]

32. "Take it up with the last ten U.S. Presidents?" I thought that Obama ran on a campaign of change.

This is not change. I voted for Obama because I thought that he would do things differently than the last ten presidents.

[ProSense]

35. So

"I thought that Obama ran on a campaign of change. This is not change. I voted for Obama because I thought that he would do things differently than the last ten presidents."

...you interpreted Obama's campaign to end the Iraq war as a removing all troops from the ME? Really?

This is outrage searching for a problem. After all, now that the President ended the war that his detractors vowed he wouldn't end, there has to be some other bullshit angle to continue the outrage.

[paulk]

37. you interpret everything as outrage directed at Obama

a rather myopic view, imo

how about outrage directed at US foreign policy?

is that ok in your world?

[ProSense]

38. Well,

"how about outrage directed at US foreign policy?"

...the President still ended the war in Iraq. Being outraged at U.S. foreign policy doesn't change that fact.

[paulk]

39. Well,

the President was forced to remove all US troops from Iraq by the Iraqi government, vis a vis a deal brokered by the previous President, as I'm sure you're aware.

so I'm not sure how accurate the statement - "...the President still ended the war in Iraq." is.

all of which has nothing to do with what I posted, in that I commented on your perceiving everything as being critical of Obama personally, rather than a critique of US foreign policy. I'm sure Obama's hands are tied concerning our middle east policy. I don't think any President can really fight the military industrial complex that runs our government. Obama's mistake was in making campaign promises he most likely knew he couldn't keep when it came to the MIC. That has upset some people.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[totodeinhere]

31. Some of us don't want any American troops in the Middle East. We don't want the troop levels to

increase, we want them to leave altogether.

[ProSense]

34. I

"Some of us don't want any American troops in the Middle East. "

...want them to leave Germany and the rest of Europe. I don't expect to get everything I want.

[MjolnirTime]

20. What, Obama ended the Iraq War? Somebody find me a fresh outrage.

[JoePhilly]

28. +100

[treestar]

23. Goalpost moving

We've had troops all over for ages. The wars are over and that's progress.

Our having presence may not be good but it's another problem.

[totodeinhere]

30. But it's not about just keeping the troops that we had already in that area.

According to the OP, they will "bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf." That means adding more troops than we have there already. I'm glad that we are getting out of Iraq, but that doesn't mean that I can''t oppose adding more troops to other parts of that same area. And the OP says they are also considering adding more naval ships to the area. I oppose that too.

And I don't see anything wrong with expressing my opposition in this forum. It's not as if anything I say here will have any effect on whether or not Obama gets reelected. A few thousand people may read this forum, but it's not enough to change the election results.

[DirkGently]

33. Of course its empire, & of course this administration supports that course of action. The question

is, why would any American citizen support it? No sane person believes we need to fight wars in the Middle East to fight terrorists who exist because we fight wars in the Middle East.

No other country finds it necessary to spend several billion dollars per week to "protect democracy" or whatever the favored lie is at the moment.

At this point, it's just a transparent attempt, by the United States, to control Middle East policy by force of arms, with the equally transparent justification that the oil is there, and we must control the oil.

It's not that surprising Obama hasn't reversed that policy. It's a little surprising he's expanded drone assassinations like it's the best thing since oxygen. And it's becoming a more and more surprising that Americans are still putting up with it as he and others tell everyone how we must sacrifice and tighten our belts, while we outspend the entire world combined projecting American power into the oilfields to benefit a few corporations that don't do anything particular for the rest of the country.

[paulk]

36. I don't think it matters who is President

military force is what we do best - it's our number one export.

there's a lot of money to be made in being the world's policemen.

[ncteechur]

41. They discussed this with Richard engel who has been there and he said that Iraq is not stable

Some troops In the region may not be a bad idea. He also said that the war in Iraq is over