Obama: ‘By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.’
Obama: ‘By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.’
In a speech at Camp Lejeune, NC today, President Obama announced that the U.S. “combat mission in Iraq will end” by August 31, 2010, at which point a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops will continue “training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces.” Obama reiterated his intention to honor the Status of Forces Agreement which calls for full U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “by the end of 2011.” Finally, Obama spoke directly to the Iraqi people, explaining that the U.S. seeks “no claim” to Iraqi territory or natural resources:
So to the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America’s intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources. We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country. And going forward, we can build a lasting relationship founded upon mutual interests and mutual respect as Iraq takes its rightful place in the community of nations.
The speech comes 5 years, 9 months, and 26 days after former President Bush first declared “mission accomplished” in Iraq. Watch highlights from Obama’s speech:
Prior to delivering his speech, Obama called Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and “briefed the prime minister on the plan he would announce.” Obama also called former President Bush, “as a courtesy.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Now Hannity or Glenn Beck will claim this date syncs up with the Mayan doomsday calendar.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:22 pmKucinich hits Iraq withdrawal: ‘You can’t be in and out’
It isn’t the opposition party Obama must now win over: It’s his own political allies.
Sen. McCain and top Republican leaders actually support the Democratic administration’s plan, while some top Democrats have openly criticized it. Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), himself a former presidential candidate, hit back Friday against a portion of Obama’s plan which would leave 35-50,000 “observer” soldiers in the country.
“You can’t be in and out at the same time,” said Kucinich in a media advisory.
“America must determine at some point to end the occupation, close the bases and bring the troops home,” he said. “We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history where war was waged under false pretense against an innocent people. Taking troops out of Iraq should not mean more troops available for deployment in other operations.
“In February of 2007 I presented H.R. 1234, legislation that would end the war in Iraq, and the process I outlined is still necessary. We should immediately bring home American service members and contractors, convene a regional conference to prepare an international peace-keeping force and accelerate Iraq-driven reconstruction.”
Straddling the fence isn’t withdrawal…and the argument, “it’s better than..” isn’t a defense or justification.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pmWould have loved the hear the conversation between Obama and Bush.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pmHm. Here is another link
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/62930.html
detailing the plan.
Obama the Candidate and Obama the President are two very tough figures to recouncile. If he had said “We will be down to 50,000 troops in Iraq in 19 months” as opposed to “We will be out of Iraq in 16 months”, I wonder how the campaign would have gone differently. The approach he is actually taking is more responsible than the one he said he’d take, but I imagine it isn’t going to go over real well with the far left wing.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:29 pm“I love the troops!” as a banner sure falls short of equipage, armor, improved educational and medical benefits, and a defined strategy that makes the most of the services of our troops.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:33 pmWe all would like to be out of Iraq tomorrow, but we know that can’t happen; this timeline is a start. Re-evaluations on the remaining troops and their mission can come later.
Kind of a classy touch that he called the warmongering idiot who got us into this mess. Just like he called him before he gave his speech the other night.
George, the effin’ worst president ever, doesn’t deserve the courtesy.
Did you all hear Laura say she “forgot all about the speech” the other night and didn’t watch, and that her friends have been bringing them pot luck dinners since they got to Dallas, and they don’t have their furniture yet? Oh, and George is out riding his bike.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:37 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
It’s so sad that reich-wingers, like Keltoi, are obsessed with keeping our troops in harms way especially in a needless “war”. Sad. Very sad.
Hm. I guess Obama is a reichwinger now too, eh Matt? Its his freakin plan, right?
February 27th, 2009 at 3:38 pmIsn’t this guy under threat indictment or something? When is he going to jail?
February 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pmI may not agree with the president’s plans to leave in 35,000-50,000 troops, but I do appreciate his willingness to listen to every advisory establishment (SecDef, JCS, NSC, and NSA) there for his use.
President Obama did say we’ll be out of there entirely by the end of 2011. (No combat other than special ops after August 2010) Gates prefers we leave some troops after that time, but I sense that the president won’t budge.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pmIf mccain and petraus are happy with this plan, AND obama conferred with bush on the plan, I am pretty certain it’s not a withdrawal
February 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pm4. Keltoi Says: The approach he is actually taking is more responsible than the one he said he’d take, but I imagine it isn’t going to go over real well with the far left wing.
Pardon? Why the need to poison the well right off the bat K? What makes leaving remnants of an illegal occupation “more responsible?”
February 27th, 2009 at 3:42 pmIt’s a plan. He’s been President for just over a month and he’s got a plan to dramatically reduce our military presence in Iraq. It’s not going to please everyone but it’s providing direction and that is something Mr. Mission Accomplished didn’t do.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:42 pmI am just glad there is some progress here after so many years. Obama always said he wanted to consult with the military before he made a final decision. Well, he gave them 3 more months, so be it. It is finally some progress. I will be really happy when all of them are home except for some to guard that huge embassy we have built there.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:43 pmperris, it doesn’t sound like Obama “conferred with Bush”.
It says he notified the former president “as a courtesy”.
Not really the same thing.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:43 pm13. hellinabucket Says: It’s a plan. He’s been President for just over a month and he’s got a plan to dramatically reduce our military presence in Iraq. It’s not going to please everyone but it’s providing direction and that is something Mr. Mission Accomplished didn’t do.
The soft bigotry of low expectations. As I said: “Straddling the fence isn’t withdrawal…and the argument, “it’s better than..” isn’t a defense or justification.”
Why not the third option, total withdrawal? Why is “close enough” the rallying cry?
February 27th, 2009 at 3:46 pmThe thing about McCain is that he is pleased with a plan he never would have supported if he were president. Appealing to the blood-boner right-wingers, Iraq was his baby during the campaign. “Leave with honor” was the only endgame he had in mind.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:47 pmWhat?! Didn’t those Iraqis have all kinds of stuff that was gonna kill us all and didn’t they attack us on 911 and don’t they hate my freedoms? Come on Mr Obama, I have lots of duct tape and plastic sheeting around here… Which color code is it? I like to match my linens with that.
Tell you what, if this country gets attacked in anyway, shape, or form in the next 15 to 20 years, I am gonna blame it on Barack Obama. Now if a natural disaster of cataclysmic proportion occurs, I am gonna blame that on gays. If the financial systems collapses, I intend to blame it on single moms and immigrants. No matter what I will not place any blame at6 the feet of waspy pasty late middle aged white dudes.
Questions? Comments? Concerns?
February 27th, 2009 at 3:50 pmdb — If I ask a question, will you personally answer or will I get the dreaded “one moment please” and have to speak with an AEI rep?
February 27th, 2009 at 3:53 pmhanshiro, There’s political talk and then there is the logistics and reality of a military conflict. The far right was clamouring that we can never get out and the far left was screaming to get out now. The reality is in the middle, not the fence. Total withdrawal is not wise, just as unending occupation.
I was never for this invasion but I’m being pragmatic about it’s resolution. No matter how we were originally put into Iraq we have to be successful in leaving. We’ve had soldiers in North Korea since the end of the Korean war for more reasons than I can fathom or justify. The reality here is we will have a military in Iraq for years to come. Not something I particularly want but I do understand to completely leave would not give the support structure to the new Iraqi military that they need in order to become more stable and self sufficient.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pmThis is a good step. All troops will be out by the end of 2011. All of them. And that is not Obama’s plan – that is the plan of the Iraqi government.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:55 pmI am not sure, maybe I need to check…
February 27th, 2009 at 3:56 pmChris LeJeune, now that would be more favorable. If the Iraqis do stick to their goal of 2011.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:56 pmhanshiro Says:
——————————————————————————–
4. Keltoi Says: The approach he is actually taking is more responsible than the one he said he’d take, but I imagine it isn’t going to go over real well with the far left wing.
Pardon? Why the need to poison the well right off the bat K? What makes leaving remnants of an illegal occupation “more responsible?”
I don’t think I am poisoning the well…not sure what you mean by that. As to the more responsible part, it was not real responsible to say “we’re outta there in 16 months” no matter what. This approach IS more responsible.
But he did what he had to do. He was safely to the Left of Hillary in the primary, and he killed her with Iraq. Then, as soon as he was in the general, he moderated his Iraq plans and said “we’ll see” because he was automatically going to be to the Left of McCain but he wanted to be a little closer to the center.
In short, he played Iraq brilliantly during the campaign, and now with Iraq basically quiet and the economy front and center, he is able to put into effect just about any policy he wants. And Code Pink is left with a dumbstruck look on their face.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:57 pmI wonder how long until Iraq is back on the US list of enemies?
Seems likely that Shiite Islamic parties like that of Malikis Dawa, the ISCI and the Sadr movement all with close political or religious ties to Iran will rule Iraq for the foreseeable future.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:58 pmhellinabucket Says:
The reality here is we will have a military in Iraq for years to come.
###
According to the Iraqi government, the SOFA, and President Obama – no we won’t.
They want a full, complete withdrawal by the end of 2011. The head of National Security for Iraq said, specifically, that he does not want to see a single US soldier after 2011. Also, this was a compromise. The Bush administration pushed for 2015. PM Maliki and his parliament asked for 2010. They compromised at 2011, only under the condition that all US troops are confined to base after July of 2009 – and no longer patrolling Iraqi streets.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:59 pm20.hellinabucket Says: hanshiro, There’s political talk and then there is the logistics and reality of a military conflict. The far right was clamouring that we can never get out and the far left was screaming to get out now. The reality is in the middle, not the fence. Total withdrawal is not wise, just as unending occupation.
I’m all ears. Please explain why Obama leaving 35-50 thousand troops in Iraq constitutes “withdrawal,” whereas Kucinich’s plan: “..immediately bring home American service members and contractors, convene a regional conference to prepare an international peace-keeping force and accelerate Iraq-driven reconstruction.” somehow makes less sense.
You want to justify leaving troops because we’ve done it elsewhere. This is defined as a fallacy: doing something because we’ve done it before/we’ve always done it, etc.
And your cop-out: “for more reasons than I can fathom or justify.” just points to ignorant acceptance of an authoritarian decision. Doesn’t wash, sorry.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:00 pmOh yeah, Matt, still waiting: I approve of Obama’s plan and am a reichwinger, so I guess that makes the President a reichwinger too? Take your time.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:00 pmKeltoi Says:
it was not real responsible to say “we’re outta there in 16 months”
####
That was what PM Maliki originally requested in the SOFA negotiations.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pmDid he ever mention anything about how many/if/when “security contractors” will be leaving Iraq?
February 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pm666lattes Says:
Did he ever mention anything about how many/if/when “security contractors” will be leaving Iraq?
###
According to the SOFA, contractors are held to the same standards as the US military. Now, this only applies to US contractors. Realize, Halliburton is based out of Dubai, and mainly uses Jordanian, Bangladesh, and Pakistani labor. So I do not know how the SOFA will affect them.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pm24.Keltoi Says: I don’t think I am poisoning the well…not sure what you mean by that.
If you don’t understand the term, how can you claim innocence? There’s this thing called “Google…”
As to the more responsible part, it was not real responsible to say “we’re outta there in 16 months” no matter what. This approach IS more responsible.
I see…so simply repeating your claim, then larding your post with irrelevant rambling proves your point? No Soup For You.
Try again. “What makes leaving remnants of an illegal occupation “more responsible?”
February 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pmChris LeJeune Says:
——————————————————————————–
hellinabucket Says:
The reality here is we will have a military in Iraq for years to come.
###
According to the Iraqi government, the SOFA, and President Obama – no we won’t.
They want a full, complete withdrawal by the end of 2011. The head of National Security for Iraq said, specifically, that he does not want to see a single US soldier after 2011. Also, this was a compromise. The Bush administration pushed for 2015. PM Maliki and his parliament asked for 2010. They compromised at 2011, only under the condition that all US troops are confined to base after July of 2009 – and no longer patrolling Iraqi streets.
Don’t forget, that since Iraq is now a democracy, Maliki has to temper his statements for public consumption. Just as Obama said one thing about Iraq and is doing another, it is entirely possible – indeed, I think likely – that Maliki will do the same after he is re-elected.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pmThere was always going to be a difference between the candidate and the president, but the difference is not as big as it could have been. We don’t know what he knows now that he is the president. At least there’s a firm date and a clear, thoughtful and responsible plan.
Obama’s call to Bush is pure class.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:11 pmah keltoi,
you’re back.
let’s go down memory lane together,
shall we?
*
Keltoi Says:
misshusseinmolly Says:
——————————————————————————–
Before we get all worked up about how much it costs taxpayers to keep George and Laura safe, could we have a comparison of security expenses with the Clintons, George HW and Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, the Carters, and Betty Ford?
I remember in 2001 when Bill Clinton left office, the wingnut blogs went crazy over the price tag for Secret Service and other security protection for the Clintons. It seems to me that ANY ex-president (or his widow) will cost a fair amount to protect, regardless of what party that president was from, or what kind of job he did in office. It’s part of the package.
Thank you, as always missmolly, for a dose of sanity.
Also, how have we extrapolated an annual cost after a month? If there is a security gate going in place, what other measures are being taken that will reduce manpower requirements?
It is actually kinda funny watching the Left go through Bush Hate withdrawl, though….
*
and then, in the very next comment,
k’s good friend bert convy chimes in:
*
BERT CONVY Says:
*
GAD! The Rapist and Chief and Her Thighness bought a mansion with the scam they did with the Secret Service after they carpetbagged their way into New York. We are actually paying for their palace and you demulous-porkulous-stimulus libby-loons are still throwing the mother of all hissy-fits about GW? Pull them panties out of that bunch and get over it.
*Yippie-Ki-Yay Democrappers
*Bert
*
remember k?
good times.
:)
February 27th, 2009 at 4:12 pmI’m hoping that Iraq follows thru with there plan and all of our troops have to leave by 2011.
The possibility of escalated insurgency is real for the next 2 years and more. 50,000 troops is a reassurance to the Iraqi people that their troops will be trained and we’ll have force capability to respond in certain situations.
hanshiro, I don’t care if you accept it or not. To remove all troops now would do what? Correct a wrong about the start of this conflict? Maybe avenge the death of yet another soldier? Prove that a campaign promise can be kept?
To just leave would create a vacuum and whether you like it or not, or even care to understand the region or not it wouldn’t be wise or politically prudent and I’m glad that President Obama is adjusting his timeline while still moving toward a goal.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:13 pm24. Keltoi Says: I don’t think I am poisoning the well…not sure what you mean by that.
An example provided by Keltoi: “..but I imagine it isn’t going to go over real well with the far left wing.”
Seeking to characterize opponents of Obama’s withdrawal plan and thereby attempt to reduce the force of their arguments. It’s troubling that keltoi doesn’t even know he’s doing it…
February 27th, 2009 at 4:15 pmKeltoi Says:
Don’t forget, that since Iraq is now a democracy, Maliki has to temper his statements for public consumption. Just as Obama said one thing about Iraq and is doing another, it is entirely possible – indeed, I think likely – that Maliki will do the same after he is re-elected.
####
I can definitely see that, especially since Maliki said this during the Iraqi elections. But realize that there is not a single political party in the Iraqi parliament that favors our presence there, and Maliki and to contend with that.
Being nit-picky however, Iraq is not technically a democracy. They are a representative theocracy. Their leaders are elected to represent the interests of the various provinces. However, according to their constitution, they are held to Islamic law. They are not the secular nation they were under Saddam. They are a predominately Shia nation, and their entire political structure originated in Iran.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:15 pmDavid Gregory
It doesn’t matter how hard you try to push, President Obama never said “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” You keep trying to put him in the same category as your President Bush but “NO ONE” is falling for it not even General McCaffrey; when David Gregory asked the question what was President Obama declaring, General McCaffrey said there is a danger of over interpreting President Obama’s Speech, General McCaffrey went on to say that he thought President Obama speech was straight forward and from a military audience this was a homerun, The General also said it literally brought tears to his eyes.
Arie Fleischer already admitted last Saturday on the D L Hugely show that David Gregory was a supporter of the George W. Bush White House and so his performance today is totally signaling that. I think even Chuck Todd was bewildered by David Gregory’s questioning of President Obama’s speech.
David Gregory is no Tim Russert and that is why Meet the Press is no longer worth watching. I think David Shuster would have been worth taking over this spot at least he doesn’t work off of Republican talking points.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:18 pmWhere is the outcry to bring them all home now? Does it bother anyone that Obama is going against what he said in his campaign? Change my mind from moment to moment we can believe!!!!! eh no principles all ideals of the moment…
February 27th, 2009 at 4:18 pm“So to the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America’s intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or resources.”
It took seven long years, but the Iraqis finally heard those words from the American president.
THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA
February 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm36. hellinabucket Says: The possibility of escalated insurgency is real for the next 2 years and more. 50,000 troops is a reassurance to the Iraqi people that their troops will be trained and we’ll have force capability to respond in certain situations.
Uh, H, we are the catalyst of the insurgency. 50,000 troops, by your claim, will somehow train what 150,000 troops failed to train in 7 years?
To just leave would create a vacuum and whether you like it or not, or even care to understand the region or not it wouldn’t be wise or politically prudent and I’m glad that President Obama is adjusting his timeline while still moving toward a goal.
The only vacuum will be the removal of an illegal, occupying force; a force with targets on their backs. A multinational force working to return Iraq’s sovereignty would do far more.
You haven’t explained the basis for your irrational clinging to Obama’s plan. Why is it better to continue the remnants of an illegal occupation?
February 27th, 2009 at 4:20 pmWhy are we still in Iraq? Why does Obama want to leave thousands of American troops and contractors hanging around Iraqi oil wells for the next couple of years?
The US should totally withdrawal all its troops, support staff, Halliburton shower-builders and Blackwater killers from the Republic of Iraq. End the US brutal imperial military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are torturing and terrorizing the 60,000,000 residents of Afghanistan and Iraq with our illegal military presence.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:23 pmKeltoi Says:
“Just as Obama said one thing about Iraq and is doing another”
Just so we’re clear, Candidate Obama consistently said that he would confer w/ the Commanders on the ground for the most responsible strategy to withdrawl. I’m not seeing how this contradicts that in any way.
Thanks for the SOFA info, Chris! That is good news.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:26 pmhanshiro Says:
You haven’t explained the basis for your irrational clinging to Obama’s plan. Why is it better to continue the remnants of an illegal occupation?
I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but please give me the chance to respond. The logistics of moving a force this large is a nightmare. Obama is still withdrawing all troops IAW the SOFA. He is removing the combat arms troops faster than required by the SOFA. Originally, it was the Iraqi government that asked for a 16-month withdrawal, but 19 months is not far from that and gives us some breathing room as well. Realize, it has taken the last 6 years to move all of this infrastructure in place. The Army Corps of Engineers has to begin removing all of the military infrastructure they have built to support our presence. All of our vehicles, weapons, and related equipment has to be evaluated as to usability. These things take time. I think a reduction to 50,000 within 19 months, and a full complete withdrawal by 2011, is very ambitious.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:30 pmRP,
Perhaps the mess created binds us to leaving in increments. Obama said 18 months — two months over his pledge — and no regular fighting afterward. Yes, a large fraction of troops will remain for about a year or so in advisory, training, equipping and special ops roles, but there is a final end date.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:30 pmA multinational force working to return Iraq’s sovereignty would do far more.
I agree… where you gonna get one of those?
February 27th, 2009 at 4:31 pmi didn’t catch her name but some bush/rush-bot was talking to tamaran hall on msnbc a few minutes ago about how upset the liberals are that the pullout will not be sooner…
AND she deduced that obama’s call to w means that he is acknowledging that “the surge worked!”
tamaran said ‘really???’
February 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pmFirst Hanshiro, there hasn’t been complete failure in the last 7 years. I also agree that the occupation was wrong to begin. I’ll let history decide it’s legality. I’m all for a complete investigation on the rush to invade Iraq. I’m pretty sure you and I would agree on most of that.
I also agree we are one of the catalysts of the insurgency. Iraq was a kettle waiting to boil over and our ignorance in rushing in, and the piss poor manner of the execution pushed it over the edge. Saddam was more afraid of a civil revolt instead of an attack from us.
The here and now tells me that a knee jerk reaction to leave to counter the knee jerk reaction to enter isn’t the correct long term answer.
I respect your position, and your passion on this subject. If it was that easy to pull out then I believe President Obama would have already signed the order. Something tells me that he has looked at the military assessment and is making a tough, but well thought out decision that I support.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pmChris L. said it best. Logistics is the key word here.
Pragmatism has it that it’s not so much the desire for an overnight withdrawal than it is laying down defined objectives that keep troops out of harms way as much as possible in the process of coming home.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:38 pmChris LeJeune Says:
[...] The Army Corps of Engineers has to begin removing all of the military infrastructure they have built to support our presence. All of our vehicles, weapons, and related equipment has to be evaluated as to usability.…
LEAVE IT ALL THERE. WHY NOT?
it’s the least we can do to help them rebuild and arm up…
February 27th, 2009 at 4:40 pmand we could use the work here to make new stuff…
The troops will in fact need to fulfill the defined roles Obama laid out — no patrolling streets laden with roadside bombs — or else I will call on this president to reduce his out-the-door strategy to the logistical duties Chris explained.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:41 pm45.Chris LeJeune Says: I know this wasn’t addressed to me, but please give me the chance to respond. The logistics of moving a force this large is a nightmare. Obama is still withdrawing all troops IAW the SOFA. He is removing the combat arms troops faster than required by the SOFA. Originally, it was the Iraqi government that asked for a 16-month withdrawal, but 19 months is not far from that and gives us some breathing room as well. Realize, it has taken the last 6 years to move all of this infrastructure in place. The Army Corps of Engineers has to begin removing all of the military infrastructure they have built to support our presence. All of our vehicles, weapons, and related equipment has to be evaluated as to usability. These things take time. I think a reduction to 50,000 within 19 months, and a full complete withdrawal by 2011, is very ambitious.
I agree, and appreciate your response. My overarching concern is the remaining presence and continued deployment of our troops without a multinational force to both accomplish the ambitious goals, but remove the permanent stigma of our invasion.
If we remain in strength, we will continue to be targets and represent a focal point for insurgents. If delegated to a multinational force, the stigma will be dissipated and more likely dispelled amongst peace-keeping forces that weren’t engaged in wholesale slaughter of over 1 million casualties, most civilians, women and children…
In short, we are a pariah in Iraq and less likely to achieve a plan as the vanguard, however reputable. That is the legacy of bush.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:53 pm.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED pt. II?
.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:01 pmHopefully somebody’s working on a “Mission REALLY Accomplished” banner about now…
.
hanshiro Says:
It isn’t the opposition party Obama must now win over: It’s his own political allies.
I don’t know if you could call Kucinich Obama’s “political ally.”
.
Keltoi Says:
If he had said “We will be down to 50,000 troops in Iraq in 19 months” as opposed to “We will be out of Iraq in 16 months”, I wonder how the campaign would have gone differently.
Didn’t he give a range of months though?
.
Keltoi Says:
The approach he is actually taking is more responsible than the one he said he’d take, but I imagine it isn’t going to go over real well with the far left wing.
True, true. As for me, all that I wanted was for somebody to actually begin the process of ending it. Arguing about how long it will take is all smoke and mirrors. The simple fact is that neither Bush nor McCain were ever willing to give the order to start any kind of withdrawal process. That’s the significant difference.
.
Chris LeJeune Says:
This is a good step. All troops will be out by the end of 2011. All of them. And that is not Obama’s plan – that is the plan of the Iraqi government.
I believe that’s the agreement we signed with them. If there are still troops there after that, then we’re invading the government we set up, all over again.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:15 pmkaty Says:
LEAVE IT ALL THERE. WHY NOT?
it’s the least we can do to help them rebuild and arm up…
and we could use the work here to make new stuff…
####
Well, for one, much of it belongs to the National Guard. I’m sure individual states would want it back in case of natural disaster. You know, like if there is a flood. Maybe in Louisiana? It would be nice if the National Guard actually had some equipment to use. Also, any of the Active component equipment left would have to be replaced, and that stuff is not cheap.
hanshiro Says:
My overarching concern is the remaining presence and continued deployment of our troops without a multinational force to both accomplish the ambitious goals, but remove the permanent stigma of our invasion.
####
I agree. I would love for us to be part of a larger MNF. But, as someone said earlier – where are you going to get one of those? We had a number of countries that supported us in the beginning that don’t want to be associated with us in any way now.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:22 pmwow… not good… just found at C&L:
Does America Really, Really Mean the SOFA Agreement?
By Cernig Friday Feb 27, 2009 2:15pm
I wrote earlier (at Newshoggers) that there was still an Iraq debate to be had – namely whether the US’ word, as set down in the SOFA agreement with Iraq, is worth the paper it’s printed on. There’s a considerable body of opinion in military and neo-whatever circles that says it isn’t.
Bob Fertik emails to note that, five minutes before Obama announced his withdrawal timetable, NBC was quoting commanders as saying it wasn’t binding on them. Just before Obama’s said “I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011,” NBC Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski told David Gregory that military commanders are making plans as if the SOFA and the orders of the Commander in Chief were irrelevant.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:24 pm[...]
http://crooksandliars.com/node
keltoi…
i don’t really see how you can say he said he’d do one thing and then did another.
he only added 1 year to the timetable. in the grand scheme of things this is not much.
regardless, he said he’d get us out, and so far appears to intend to do so.
its amazing how far we’ve come already in terms of whats on the horizon… its not even march yet.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:28 pmthat was kinda lame, chris… that’s the best you can come up with?
the national guard has been doing without for years…
open up those car making plants and get some new equipment to the states…
all the stuff that’s over in iraq is mostly ruined by now anyway…
iraq surely has enough people who need jobs that can fix it up for their own army… we’ve destroyed their country… we need to give them tools to fix it…
just sayin’…
February 27th, 2009 at 5:30 pm49. hellinabucket Says: First Hanshiro, there hasn’t been complete failure in the last 7 years.
The entire bush administration was a failure. The invasion of Iraq was a failure; creating a worldwide terrorist crisis and rallying event.
I also agree that the occupation was wrong to begin. I’ll let history decide it’s legality. I’m all for a complete investigation on the rush to invade Iraq. I’m pretty sure you and I would agree on most of that.
History need not decide. The arguments for invading Iraq were specious and revolving. And illegal. Iraq posed no ‘imminent threat,’ the only basis for invasion according to the Constitution.
I also agree we are one of the catalysts of the insurgency. Iraq was a kettle waiting to boil over and our ignorance in rushing in, and the piss poor manner of the execution pushed it over the edge. Saddam was more afraid of a civil revolt instead of an attack from us.
No, rather we portrayed Iraq as some sort of boiling kettle, the better to sell an illegal and elective war. Read “Manufacturing Consent” to see how this is systematically done; representing our enemies as terrorists while portraying our allies, committing worse sins, as necessary steps to maintaining democracy.
There is no justification to invading Iraq. We provided Saddam with his ‘weapons,’ remember; and even during and after his gassing the kurds he remained an ally. Fact.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:33 pmI’m with Katy. Leave the stuff there. And if you have a flood or something, you will think better and harder before invading countries preempetively.
Also, I’m with Hanshiro. And leave Afghanistan too, both are illegal occupations. Use the freaking UN Security Council, thats why you created it.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:35 pm56. Chris LeJeune Says: I agree. I would love for us to be part of a larger MNF. But, as someone said earlier – where are you going to get one of those? We had a number of countries that supported us in the beginning that don’t want to be associated with us in any way now.
That’s easier to answer since a new administration has come into power. While the Iraqis, rightfully, will never trust the US, our allies understand the change of guard and would be more open to considering the possibilities. Again, I agree with Kucinich.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:37 pmkaty Says:
that was kinda lame, chris… that’s the best you can come up with?
#####
OK, well let me personalize it for you then. When I left Iraq we drove down to Camp Arif Jon , Kuwait to have our equipment evaluated. The stuff that was still usable got passed to incoming units. The stuff that was unusable was set aside for scrap parts. We arrived home with nothing.
So now, our National Guard still has to train for US commitments in Panama, Nicaragua, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc. And the state of Utah needs to be ready for natural disaster. But we have no equipment. And we don’t see the funds for that coming any time soon. Maybe that will change. Maybe those “car making plants” will start producing buffaloes, MRAPs, cougars, humvees, LMTV’s, etc. In the mean time, the Natioal Guard is still needed. And so is the active component.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:38 pmChris, not trying to pick a fight or anything, but why are there US troops in Nicaragua, Panama, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc?
Have you ever wondered that? I mean, would you want Chinese, Polish, or Pakistani bases on US soil? It strikes me that people never wonder that, they just take that as a given.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:43 pmi know what you meant, chris… but it doesn’t change a thing -
the national guard STILL doesn’t have equipment NOW and bringing junk back in 19 months won’t help either…
just leave it there… we need NEW stuff…
but no f’n useless humvees.
.
HI JUAN! long time seldom see… hope you are well and good…
February 27th, 2009 at 5:46 pmexcellent question there, juan…
February 27th, 2009 at 5:46 pmand i’m not picking a fight either, chris…
just don’t understand why bringing back all that stuff is so important.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:48 pmFine, katy…just read the news about this “withdrawal”.
At least there is a change in the speech, which in dimplomacy means a lot. Let’s see where this gets us.
best regards, k!!
February 27th, 2009 at 5:48 pmI like the effort Mr. President, but I think that is 50,000 too many. Can’t we just have no war for a little while? Do we ALWAYS have to be off somewhere invading some country?
Plunditry Blog
February 27th, 2009 at 5:51 pmhttp://plunditry.com
Check it out and tell me what you think!
Juan C. Says:
Chris, not trying to pick a fight or anything, but why are there US troops in Nicaragua, Panama, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc?
#####
Numerous different reasons. As part of Operation Bright Star, US military police work with the Egyptian police. Our national guard builds schools, digs wells (there is an entire well-digging national guard unit) and provides medical care in Nicaragua. We cross train with the Panamanian military and provide humanitarian assistance there as well. Afghanistan is a much larger problem that cannot be fully explained here – nor would it be relevant to the topic. But, suffice it to say, the US has numerous missions all over the world that other countries rely on us for. Not to say that we should be there or not, but that is for the diplomats to decide on an individual basis.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:55 pmBy the way, Juan and Katy – I’m not trying to pick a fight either. I’ve been posting on TP now for a long time and i completely agree with your perspective. I write for vetvoice.com and I’m a senior advisor to VoteVets. I am very happy to see the Iraq withdrawal. But I also know that these things take time. This is a good start.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:03 pmi admit, this is the only venue, but i’ve always appreciated your writing, chris.
if you get the chance, bring up my suggestion and see what military people think about it… thanks.
btw, i do understand that there will be some equipment that cannot be left behind for security reasons… but all the heavy equipment and buildings, leave it all there.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:09 pmkaty Says:
i know what you meant, chris… but it doesn’t change a thing -
the national guard STILL doesn’t have equipment NOW and bringing junk back in 19 months won’t help either…
just leave it there… we need NEW stuff…
*****
I don’t really understand why this was not part of the economic stimulus. They do need new stuff. I would imagine that some of what served in Iraq is not worth the cost to ship. In any event, just moving the people home is a big logistic task, and Chris is correct, you can’t turn the ship of war on a dime, a month here or there is expected. To Chris, I’m a newbie and have not met you before. You obviously know what you’re talking about. I thank you for your service, and pray our leaders will take thought before they send our best and brightest in harm’s way.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:24 pmha!
just came back to say this: besides, we need that stuff in afghanistan!
just watching the video from richard engle who is there now, reporting on rachel maddow…
great footage of these HUGE, lumbering supply trucks trying to navigate “roads” OBVIOUSLY not made for heavy vehicles… in the mud, in winter…
…
OutstandingInMyField Says:
I don’t really understand why this was not part of the economic stimulus.
I KNOW!!! … excellent point!
though i’m happier thinking of alternative energy production as the main stimulus, there is the reality…
February 27th, 2009 at 9:41 pmJohn Kerry Says:
Unfortunately for you, you’re not dreaming.
Welcome to America punk!
February 27th, 2009 at 11:44 pmThat’s everyone wanted to hear, Go Obama.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:50 pm50.000 trops left in Iraq is still caled OCCUPATION! Obama, boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
February 28th, 2009 at 2:42 amPetition Congress to cut off funding for Iraq. No more lives lost, no more money wasted, no more terrorists created, no more disabled vets… total withdrawal now. Enough is enough!
http://www.democrats.com/iraq-petition?ad=d0
February 28th, 2009 at 9:31 amObama the war monger needs to reduce troops in Iraq. How else will he fund the surge in Afghanistan?
We all know how important Afghanistan’s Opium trade is to Obama and the democrats. How else will they supply the American people with the drugs to dumb then down even further?
The more that the people are dumbed down the more that Obama and the socialists will control them. Once the people are completely under control then Obama can raise taxes at will to fund radical groups like CAIR and ACORN.
Ohh but there is still the pesky problem with the 48% that did not vote for Obama. How will he deal with them?
Hey, did anyone see the tea parties across the US today? The protests on high taxation were awesome. Probably not given that most of you watch the state controled MSNBC.
But if you did get a chance to peek out side of your boxes, you;d see that the honeymoon with the junior senator is already ending.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pmBut by when is Obama going to deal with Bush’s hate crimes?
George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).
George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.
Bush was absolute evil.
Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.
Bush is a psychological prisoner.
Bush has a lot to worry about.
Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.
In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
March 1st, 2009 at 2:29 am