President Obama to end US combat role in Iraq, but.....

about 50,000 troops will remain? :roll: And he said he was bringing them home
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_iraq_23

Looks like more of the same to me

 

If I were to put my politcal analysist hat on I would gauge that he is hoping to reach some sort of compromise with the republicans in order to gain some bi-partisan support.

The primaries were about getting support from HIS voters.
The general election was about getting support from disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters.
The first term of his tenure will more than likely be about trying to gain some support from disgruntled John McCain supporters.

If you choose to believe that this is more of the same, than you have that right. I however refuse to believe that this country is doomed no matter what, I'm staying optimistic and objective about all of this.

 

A complete pullout would only be an open invitation to Al-Qaeda and Iran to make incursions into Iraqi society and its political structure. When Iraq will be ready to stand on its own feet without the presence of any foreign troops is anyone's guess?

The Bush doctrine is such a disaster that we have to make costly decisions to salve other costly decisions.

 

As far as I'm aware of the U.S. has never left anyplace that we deployed to regardless of who's in the White House....we're still in Germany and Japan...Korea...Vietnam.
We'll never leave that's just the way it it..we end becoming part of the local foreign economy....providing jobs and so forth.

Down-sizing and pulling out are two different things.

 

Maybe Iran would, maybe they wouldn't. But that should not be our concern. We can't and shouldn't take care of Iraq. We had no business being there in the first place, and we should leave now. Their fate should be in their hands, not ours

You're absolutely correct. It was a disaster and an utter failure. But President Obamas' actions are not the remedy to that in the least. It is our presence in these countries that invites the discord and animosity that manifests itself in terrorism against Americans. The sooner we cease being there, the better it will be for America

 

ehhh..

there are still chances that we'll have more 'surges' in number, to deal with hostilities. The 50,000 troops will be the speed bump for any attacks, similar to the small force we still have deployed in S. Korea.

If I was a 'traditional' (traditional in the sense that, overwhelming numbers wins fights) thinking battlefield commander, I would wait for that downsize to happen, and then launch a heavy offensive against positions (bases, outposts, checkpoints, etc), that we're still being occupied by the smaller force. Of course, I would have to factor in the remaining enemy strength, force makeup (am I going against armored personnel carriers or tanks? How much close air support does my enemy still have available?). I would try to cause as much bloodshed to those remaining troops, as I could, and really make the American people question their role in Iraq. Right now, I would just milk the hell out of this situation, and wait until 2010.

The true X-factor to this scenario, is the 'projected' quality (right now, these guys are very suspect) of the new Iraqi defense forces. A pullout will signalize the maturity and acceptance of the Iraqi DF. These guys will have a lot of people looking at them, when we do decide to cutback on troops.

 

Actually it should because a state that funds terrorist organizations like Iran is a national security concern, especially if its influence extends over the border into a potentially failed state like Iraq.

Pretend all you want that it doesn't matter, but it does.

And the plan calls for a pullout of the remaining 50,000 by the end of 2011.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7916339.stm?ad=1

 

I don't recall Iran doing any harm to the US. It's been the US which has been hostile to Iran. And it was the US who was responsible for creating that failed state in Iraq. Maybe The US should think twice before it imposes its will on other nations

:smt102 We'll see if that really happens. I'm skeptical though.

 

Obama kept the SecDef on board and he is drawing down much in the same manner his predecessor had planned to: by listening to the Generals on the ground.

In the meantime he is increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.

Sounds like a continuation of the Bush Doctrine. Smart man, that Obama.

 

I didn't see that recent surge in Afghanistan happening, at all

bleh

 

That's because you didn't read carefully enough. The Bush Doctrine would've had us keep current troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely. Obama also would not have invaded Iraq in the first place.

 

The Bush administration had already begun a phased draw-down and also had already negotiated an agreeement with the Iraqi govt to have all troops out by 2011. Obama has stated that he intends to honor this agreement.

But he has accelerated the pace of the redeployment. Time will tell if this is a wise move. You are correct though, he would have never started the war but it is his now.

 

You are a statesman and a gentleman-----Thank you Sir