Iraqi leader insists on 2011 deadline for U.S. troop pullout

Tuesday 26th August, 06:28 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 163 Total Comments Show All

Bilderberg666 at 10:36 AM JST - 27th August

Political lesson-Afghanistan is not sending militants and weaponary into Iraq. That is Syria and Iran. If we leave they destroy everything we have accomplished.
Nessie at 10:47 AM JST - 27th August

Sounds like this leader is asking for it. Regime change, here I come.
SezWho2 at 10:53 AM JST - 27th August

The problem with "supporting the troops" is that it has become a euphemism for "supporting American exceptionalism". Eisenhower warned about the power of the military-industrial complex and his warning, perhaps predictably, went unheeded.

"Supporting the troops" in America should mean that our troops are well-equipped and well-cared for. It also means that they are given missions which either can clearly be accomplished or must be attempted regardless of outcome. Iraq has never been either of those.

"Supporting the troops" in America should not mean agreeing with the policy decisions of the president and his advisors. And most definitely it should not mean giving a blank check for more blood and more dollars in an attempt to redeem the blood and dollars already expended. That is a strategy which, when applied to corporations, threatens to bankrupt them. When applied to nations the results are little different.
USAFdude at 10:53 AM JST - 27th August

Military lesson - the man responsible for 9/11 is in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Take out Al-Qaeda's leaders and the followers are easier to pick off. War on terror is thus won by the US.

PS: We do have missiles capable of hitting Syria from Afghanistan.
ColAmerica at 10:57 AM JST - 27th August

maybe your access o current info is limited, but bthe latest i heard was, Bin laden and co were hiding out inside Iran now, as he believes we cannot ouch him there.
Betzee at 11:00 AM JST - 27th August

The US people must be educated into why our long term presence in Iraq is desperatley needed.

Yet in your accumulated posts you don't offer any argument to support that claim, just a collection of points.

With terorists pouring into Iraq, we cannot leave the country to the mercy of these maniacs.

The US military has acknowledged at most 5 percent of insurgent fighters are non-Iraqi nationals. The bulk come from Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 hijackers grew up. Yet it's also America's gas station making it hard to press for change given the repressive government is a reliable agent of oil. Offshore drilling won't change that; as long as the Saudis have other buyers for their oil nothing will change.

We will leave when you decide Iraq is secure, safe from invasion, and able to support itself, and NOT before.

How will we know when that day has arrived? I've been told that will be left to the commanders in the field. But how will they arrive at that determination? There must be some basis. The Iraqis are telling us it will be here by 2011, yet you dismiss this despite PM Maliki democratic credentials. Given it's costing us 3 billion a week to remain, this question needs to be addressed.

The Iraqi people have a democratic government, however that government is immature and does not have the abilities to make the correct decisions regarding security matters.

I have been branded selfish and racist by other posters owing to my lack of support for spreading freedom (from the barrel of a gun). Freedom is rarely defined, however, and means different things to different folks. For those in the post-colonial world who were ruled by a different race, it means self-government. For Westerners, it means limited government. So we're fighting to install a limited government in a country with a security vacuum? This makes no sense.

Leaving an unsafe state would be a waste of years of work rebuilding the country.

The sunk cost argument. That was raised after we'd lost a couple of hundred men in Vietnam. The ultimate tally was 58,000, nearly half of whom died after Nixon came into office promising to end the war. "Ex military hero" John McCain believes we could have won through more intensive bombing of the North, reflecting a view that superior force can break people. There's scant evidence to support that, however.

We must be prepared to sacrifice financially and in lives,

In fact the war has become open-ended precisely because the majority has not been asked to sacrifice at all and could simply accept what they told. There's no draft of course; instead the cost of private contractor security services will reach USD 100 billion by the end of GWB's term. Presumably that is part of the USD 5 trillion debt he is bequeathing future generations of taxpayers. I question the patriotism of those who shrug off that repayment burden; concern for your country's welfare should be in perpetuity not lifetime.

Russia’s action has been condemned worldwide.

True, but that may prove helpful to Moscow. As I wrote about the utility of economic sanctions which "offer an unpopular government the opportunity to rally support under the nationalist banner of demonstrating resolve against external enemies."

The same logic holds here; outside condemnation can prompt citizens to support their leadership. It certainly played well with GWB's base when the UN Security Council refused to sign off on a pre-emptive strike against Saddam's regime in 2003. “Well, if the UN objects that means we’re doing something right.” Ditto for the Chinese when Beijing came under censure for cracking down on Tibetans. And Russians overwhelmingly back their government's invasion of Georgia.
Betzee at 01:25 PM JST - 27th August

The problem with "supporting the troops" is that it has become a euphemism for "supporting American exceptionalism".

This point is addressed by retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich in The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism who notes:

[T]he reconciliation of the people and the Army turned out to be a chimera. When the chips were down, "supporting the troops" elicited plenty of posturing but little by way of binding commitments. Far from producing a stampede of eager recruits keen to don a uniform, the events of 9/11 reaffirmed a widespread popular preference for hiring someone else's kid to chase terrorists, spread democracy and ensure access to the world's energy reserves.

Even the neocons could not ignore the problem leading Max Boot, in February 2005, to propose in an article later referred to as "Uncle Sam Wants Tu," that US armed forces "open up recruiting stations from Budapest to Bangkok, Cape Town to Cairo, Montreal to Mexico City" to raise up a Freedom Legion of foreign mercenaries. If the Pentagon needed to scour the streets of Cape Town and Cairo to fill its ranks, the situation was indeed dire.
KnightsTemplars at 01:30 PM JST - 27th August

Betzee- Another liberal post, lying about the integrity of our president, and falsley inferring their is a troop shortage.

We have plenty of troops, and equipment, our hardware is awesome.

We can stay in Iraq for 100 years, if we deem that to be the best choice for Iraq to flourish.

Remember, this war may not end in our lifetimes. 100 years of bases in Iraq is a possibility we must face up to.
Betzee at 01:42 PM JST - 27th August

100 years of bases in Iraq is a possibility we must face up

And how are we facing up to it? "War costs money," Franklin Roosevelt reminded the American people after Pearl Harbor. "That means taxes and bonds. It means cutting luxuries and non-essentials."

By contrast GWB, less than two weeks after tohse planes hit the twin towers, encouraged his countrymen to "enjoy America's great vacation spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida." As late as December 2006, when the situation in Iraq was looking pretty grim, GWB noted with satisfaction that the national's annual holdiay shopping binge was off to a strong start. Nonetheless he encouraged "you all to go shopping even more."

How does this jive with your slogan "freedom isn't free"? Maybe the NYT's got it right in a provocative Feb 06 article: "Is freedom just another word for many things to buy?" As Bacevich writes, "Through their actions after 9/11, as before, ten of millions of Americans answered in the affirmative."
KnightsTemplars at 01:47 PM JST - 27th August

Betzee- President bush urged people to travel and go on vacations to lift the spirits of a broken people. His sensitive thinking brought the US together, where all joined and supported the war on terror.

The fact that we may have to remain in Iraq for a long period is due to external trouble makers, wishing to hurt us by destroying our mission.
zurcronium at 01:58 PM JST - 27th August

betzee,

bacevich is a remarkable man whose analysis of the bush failed invasion is spot on. And beyond the idle postings of the reactionary winger crowd bacevich gave up his son to bush's lies and delinquent behavior. Have you read his book?

the flag waiving winger community cheers for the deaths of the very soldiers they claim to support with their stupid bumper stickers and false patriotism. The fact is that Iraq is a failure that was brought to us by US oil companies and the blood lost there is in exchange for oil. No slogans can hide that fact. No flag waving can make up for the hundreds of thousands of dead kids and others who have died for nothing noble, only for greed wrapped in corruption and covered in failure.
zurcronium at 02:11 PM JST - 27th August

he was on Moyers recently. Great interview.
apecNetworks at 04:48 PM JST - 27th August

It's a game of "numbers". How the spending has been allocated to the budgets and black budgets, VERY telling where this is all leading. I believe international bankers looking at the US suspects the agenda. From what I have experienced in the last ten years and some confirmations of my theories, the need for a naval/air force engagement in the Asia-Pacific seems a foregone conclusion.

The US is armed to the teeth, w/out a suitable major conflict, w/ a military buildup dependent on credit
Alinsky4prez at 06:52 PM JST - 27th August

Of course the troops need to get out but it should be managed correctly by Obama and his people. It's very important that the soldiers continue to be portrayed exclusively as criminals over there and as victims back in America.
smithinjapan at 12:43 PM JST - 28th August

ColAmerica: "maybe your access o current info is limited, but bthe latest i heard was, Bin laden and co were hiding out inside Iran now, as he believes we cannot ouch him there."

Hate to burst your bubble, but clearly you cannot touch him anywhere; hence, your dear leader decided to go illegally into Iraq as a kind of distraction from the inability to track down a single man with very little technology behind him.