A Combat Troop Withdrawal From Iraq?

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Los Angeles Times
August 1, 2008
A United States-Iraq security pact would set a goal -- but no timetable -- for the American units to leave, Iraqi officials say.
By Ned Parker and Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
BAGHDAD — Iraqi officials said Thursday that they were close to finalizing a new security arrangement that would set out the goal of withdrawing all U.S. combat troops from the country, while stopping short of establishing a strict timetable for their departure.
The pact would outline a conditional time frame for Iraqi troops to take charge of the country and U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn, according to Iraqi officials familiar with the talks.
The Iraqis said the new arrangement would allow Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to claim that he has enshrined the principle of an American withdrawal, a key demand for a government eager to show independence from Washington while keeping the flexibility to extend the U.S. military presence if security deteriorates.
As long as the country remains stable, Maliki has said, he sees no need for U.S. combat forces to remain past 2010, roughly matching the timeline for a phased withdrawal proposed by Sen. Barack Obama. The Bush administration and Sen. John McCain have opposed committing to rigid deadlines, though the White House recently acknowledged a willingness to adhere to a "general time horizon" for Iraqi forces to take full control of security and for the number of U.S. troops to be reduced.
In brief comments Thursday at the White House, President Bush said "sustained progress" in Iraq will allow the military to cut the length of combat tours and possibly make further reductions in troop levels in the fall.
"The progress in Iraq has allowed us to continue our policy of 'return on success,' " Bush said.
He repeated what the Pentagon had already announced: Troops deploying to Iraq beginning today will serve 12-month tours, rather than the 15 months they were expecting.
Maliki's national security advisor, Mowaffak Rubaie, said talks on the security accord were based on the premise of U.S. forces leaving Iraq, but "this time horizon is a planning tool, not a definitive schedule."
A new deal is required because the current United Nations mandate authorizing the U.S.-led multinational force to operate in Iraq expires at the end of the year.
At a Pentagon news conference, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the draft agreement would still allow U.S. forces to perform their mission, adding that the troop drawdown would proceed according to conditions on the ground rather than a timetable.
The White House had been pressing to conclude negotiations by the end of July. But talks foundered, with Iraqi officials accusing the administration of seeking to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely.
In June, Iraqi lawmakers rejected a draft agreement, saying that the United States was seeking at least 50 permanent military bases and infringing on their country's sovereignty.
Negotiations got back on track after the White House ceded to Iraqi demands to set out some form of calendar.
The deal will map out a conditional time frame for Iraqi forces to take over greater security responsibilities and for Americans to gradually withdraw, said Haidar Abadi, a senior member of Maliki's fundamentalist Islamic Dawa Party.
"The whole thing has been spun around," Abadi said. "Before, it was a [status of forces agreement] presented as a long-term agreement, with some hope one day foreign troops will end their mandate.
"Now we are talking about when foreign forces are going to cease their operations."
The new pact also will include a strategic framework governing diplomatic, economic and security relations between the two countries, and a protocol governing the legal status of U.S. troops.
Iraqi officials said there is agreement to provide immunity from Iraqi law to U.S. troops on their bases and those conducting missions.
Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the draft would give the military enough leeway to conduct operations, but cautioned that negotiations were still underway.
"I think we have to wait until those negotiations finish to really know . . . the details," Mullen said.
Fuad Masoom, the leader of the Kurdish bloc in parliament, said the country's main political leaders expected to review the latest draft within five days at their political council for national security, the body that rejected the earlier proposal.
Iraq saw the number of violent deaths drop in July, for a third straight month.
According to the ministries of health and interior, 465 people were killed in July -- 387 civilians and 78 Iraqi security forces. In June, 510 people died in violence; in May, 563 died.
Thirteen U.S. troops were killed in July, the lowest number of American deaths since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to the independent website icasualties.org. A total of 4,127 U.S. military personnel have died.
Parker reported from Baghdad and Spiegel from Washington. Times staff writers James Gerstenzang in Washington and Saif Hameed and Saif Rasheed in Baghdad contributed to this report.
 
American troops leaving is a bad idea. No matter how you slice it, the end result will be failure IF we leave completely.
 
Eventually we have to leave. When is the question along with how. A rapid major pull out is bad news a gradual pull down would be the best bet.
 
IMO if you draw down and leave a base in Iraq then you leave a target. Because you and me know that as soon as all the major formations are gone. It's gonna go to hell in merimite can in Iraq.

Germany all ready wants us out (no soviet threat to be protected from) The Reunification faction in the ROK (not you 13th) want us out. Now that there is no Saddam how long before Kuwait and Saudi tell us to pack our trash?
 
True enough, we're screwed. Scary stuff, with the military issues on the table, it worries me about who Might be elected.
 
Notice it says Combat Troops. Does this mean the Iraqi's want us to leave support units to bolster their infrastructure? Without a combat formation.

You know what happens when you leave REMF's with no infantry. Dead REMF's.
 
Hahahahaha Roger that. It's very disturbing to me. Cutting and running will weaken our country. I'm concerned, I wanna do what's right becuase it's right for the country not because it's right for politics. What the proper answer is, I have no clue but I know what I think, but even this doesn't mean it's correct so I am open to folks (like you and Top) suggestions on the matter.
 
I don't know eithier. But it turns my stomach to think that my country would throw away the sacrifices of it's millitary to win a freakin election. Like the majority of the public even think about our people over there when their buyin kakhis at old navy!!!!!!!!!!
 
hahahaha, yes. Americans take for granted the sacrifices our folks make to serve this country, they have no idea. Very very frustrating and disappointing. Although, I often wonder if having a mandatory two years service after high school would fix this?
 
I think a mandatory tour in the military might help some people. But I also think that the 10%ers would actually become 40 or 50%er's. It wouldn't help the military at all.
 
I thought of that too, it might be like the terrible policy they used to have where they let thugs in the military instead of going to jail. That was retarded as it brought down the folks that had to serve around those bums. Well, the other option is that so many people can come with so many different theories in regards to global warming, why can't they come up with different theories for what would happen if we pull out of Iraq, or if we stay or if we pull out slowly or whatever else. Because I don't know the answers, I would suggest we stay until we figure it out otherwise we'll go back there in the future and lose more folks. Perhaps a wall similar to the one that used to divide West/East Germany will work on the borders of the terrorist states?
 
Holy freakin crap, we're screwed. We need to be there at least then until our own oil spply is internal and don't have to rely on them anymore. However, my other concern is then Israel. Israel has to deal with those freaks, we can't leave them to fend for themselves. Eventually, this will probably turn into a world war because I don't see things changing as far as a compromise that we or they will be satisfied with for very long.
 
However, my other concern is then Israel. Israel has to deal with those freaks, we can't leave them to fend for themselves.

I have a feeling a certain Presidential Candidate would have not one qualm of doing exactly that. If it worked for him in politically. OOOPPPPPS did I type that out loud.
 
No he'd need someone who knows Shaira Law. I typed that out loud too!!! Darn it gotta watch myself!
 
Here's how I see it.
That Iraqi police and military better get its crap together, as well as the Iraqi government. If that doesn't work out, it'll never work out.

Difference between Iraq and Korea. Korea is surrounded by China and Japan, both with powerful economies, substantial military forces and lots and lots of hate. Korea CANNOT stop a full blown invasion by China or a full blown embargo and blockade by Japan on its own. Iraq will not have this sort of problem. Yes, there is Iran, but I think with just enough support, Iraq should be able to be good enough to hold them back.
As for combat formations, it depends. If you stabilize it enough, you'll be alright.
But eventually US troops will have to leave Iraq. 03 is right, a US presence over the long term will do more harm than good.
The Saudis may not want the US out in a hurry though. There's still Iran and the last time I heard they're not exactly friends.
 
Back
Top