Nearly all US troopes to leave Iraq by year's end

Linky

While it dosn't say as much in the article, I heard on CNN (if we can get another source to confirm, that'd be great) that the reason for the withdrawal is that the US couldn't get immunity for its troops.

While I agree with withdrawing the troops, I don't agree with the reasons for it.

Same here. They're soldiers, not foreign ambassadors, and should be held responsible for any wrong-doings they commit.

Ed: And I use "ambassador" in terms of an Embassy having diplomatic immunity.

edited 21st Oct '11 10:46:59 AM by Sakan4k

Leaving Iraq, heading to Afghanistan!

Are you actually deployed right now Barkey? I thought you were still Stateside stuck in some dead-end security work.

Yeah, other news media like BBC and CBC stated that it was because US troops couldn't get immunity. It's hard to say whether Obama used that as an excuse to withdraw all troops, or if it was actually a deal breaker. The Iraqi government had been growing hostile to US troop presence, but the main camp in the political arena wanted US troops to protect them but they were pretty sure it would be impossible to give immunity.

edited 21st Oct '11 10:55:26 AM by breadloaf

And while we're at it, the Obama administration just found a good way to drastically reduce the U.S. deficit without sinking all federal social programs... ^_^

Just in time for next year's election, too! What a coincidence!

Welcome home, troops - oh, wait. Afghanistan.

Breadloaf, it might well have been a little bit of both. But in any case, it's good that we're withdrawing from there. Maybe this'll help set the stage for withdrawing from Afghanistan. I'm just glad to hear it.

I wonder how much money this will supposedly save.

Good riddance to a useless war.

I'm glad that we're withdrawing, and next time we send troops anywhere, we should take proper measures and handle it correctly. I'm saying that because of what happened in Vietnam.

About frikkin time we got out of Iraq. Now the military can focus on finishing Afghanistan.

Freaking finally. One of the biggest mistakes in recent history.

SHOCKING!!!! The GOP is against it.

What a surprise.

edited 21st Oct '11 3:13:15 PM by Thorn14

It could reduce the Defense Budget. OF COURSE the GOP is against it.

A dictator who killed 500,000 people is dead. A nation of 30 million is a new democracy with free elections for all. The will of the minority no longer trumps the majority as happened under Saddam. Their economy is in better shape today than it was for 30 years prior to US intervention.

Useless? Far from it. Unpopular? Admittedly, but when it comes to decisions like war, popularity is often a poor indicator of either quality of cause, justification or whether or not it was "worth it".

Besides, US troops haven't been doing any fighting since 2009. Combat troops left then, this merely fills out the last conditions set by the Bush-Maliki Security Deal of 2008.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8830284/US-to-announce-full-withdrawal-of-troops-from-Iraq.html

There are about 5000 mercs staying in Iraq, as well as a 'massive' diplomatic presence.

Thoughts?

Tom, over 100,000 civilians died getting him out, and there were other dictators who'd killed more. That Saddam's removal from power is laudable doesn't justify the execution of his removal, nor the manner in which resources were expended to that end.

So we should have just left him there to gas the Kurds, starve the Shia and continually fire at NATO fighter jets enforcing the no-fly zones?

A lot more lives would have been lost in the long run had we left him there in power. Our execution might not have been perfect, but it was the best option to do. The Arab Spring would not have toppled him, hell the Arab Spring in part owes its very existence to the fact we went in and toppled him and had a democracy emerge in his place rather than the Cold War style of prop another dictator up.

Leaving him there was unacceptable by all standards. Were there a better way, we would have done it in 1991.

Saddam was nasty, yes.

Going into Iraq, however, was wrong. Using faked evidence to do it extends it further was a war crime of the highest degree committed by our then leaders. I'm looking at you, Cheney, and you too, Bush.

Iraq is listed on the democracy index at 111 as a hybrid regime, just one rank before authoriatan regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

edited 9th Mar '12 1:43:56 AM by kyfhv

Out of one shithole and into the next. Yes lets continue to piss off the locals and draw foreign mercs into the nation so they can hate us some more. Lets just stop wasting time, money , and lives and come home period.

So we should have just left him to slaughter and pillage and starve his people then? No other method would have brought him down.

You seem to be forgetting that

And what about assasinating saddam? How about a coup? How about supporting an insurgency?

edited 9th Mar '12 1:45:34 AM by kyfhv

Uday and Qusay Hussein would then have power.

The military were led by his sect the Sunni, they had all the power and no reason to go against Saddam.

Using who? The PKK weren't interested in Basra. The Mahdi Army didn't exist under Saddam and would have been crushed anyway if it tried.

Also, that tactic was tried in 1992. It failed bloodily.

""So we should have just left him to slaughter and pillage and starve his people then?""

Yes, we should have, because while he did not have the right to do that we did not have the right to go in there.