Obama sets Iraq pullout date

Fat Frank

Active member
Washington - US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama vowed on Monday to pull out the bulk of US forces from Iraq by mid-2010 - but insisted on keeping "a residual force" to fight remnants of al-Qaeda in the country for an unspecified amount of time.
And in a blow to current efforts by the administration of President George W Bush, he also promised not to seek permanent US military bases in Iraq, if he is elected president in November.
"As I've said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in," Obama wrote in The New York Times.
He added that the United States could safely redeploy its combat brigades inside Iraq at a pace that would remove them from the country in 16 months after his taking office in January of 2009 in case he wins the presidential election.
"That would be the summer of 2010 - two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began," Obama pointed out. "After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces."
The Democratic White House hopeful, who has practically assured his party's presidential nomination, said he would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government as his strategy is being implemented - and make unspecified "tactical adjustments" if needed.
He pointed out that US troops would be redeployed from secure areas of Iraq first and volatile regions later.
Obama also promised to pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq's stability and commit two billion dollars to a new international effort to support Iraq's refugees.
He welcomed a call by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of US troops from Iraq, arguing that efforts by Iraqi leaders to take responsibility for their own country should be encouraged.
The candidate, who has been under criticism recently for allegedly wavering on Iraq, also argued that he would not hold the US military nor the country's resources and foreign policy "hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq".
The comment came as the Bush administration and the Maliki government were trying to strike a status-of-forces agreement that would allow for a long-term US military presence in Iraq. Such an accord is seen as crucial because a UN mandate allowing the US military presence in the country expires at the end of the year.
 
And then there's the flip side of the same story. Yeah, it's not exactly from his supporters but it is still another viewpoint and something to think about:

Obama made the point plain two months ago: the President sets the strategic goals, and the generals carry out his orders. Period, full stop, as Obama himself said in a speech this week. Now suddenly Obama has decided that he should listen to the generals before setting the strategic goals, which is not just a flip-flop, but really an opening for a full-fledged abandonment of the position that won him the support of the netroots and the nomination.
The question, of course, is why Obama didn’t bother to consult with these commanders before taking his public position on Iraq. He could have traveled to Iraq any time during the campaign, especially in April before emphasizing his withdrawal-at-all-costs policy on Fox News. Instead, he famously spurned the opportunity to do a joint briefing with John McCain and intimated that he didn’t need a briefing to understand the issue. Now, suddenly, he’s begun backpedaling even before he sets foot in Iraq.
Ambiguous? It’s a collapse. By emphasizing stability and moving away from even the 16-month plan he had cited as “responsible”, he has all but adopted the John McCain position of no withdrawal without victory. That, as Allahpundit noted, is good news for the war effort, but it exposes Obama as either a naif or a politician willing to sell his own grandmother for power — and perhaps both at the same time. With this reversal coming on top of the FISA reform flip-flop, he has completely thrown the netroots under the bus, along with MoveOn and Code Pink.
And, of course, it still leaves us with the essential question: whither Obama? Because if he can sell out his political allies this easily just to gain a few votes from the center, nothing would stop him from betraying his new policy stands once elected if he saw any personal political gain from doing so. Simply put, he can’t be trusted.
Obama painted himself as a New Politics statesman who didn’t play the Beltway game. Not only has he exposed himself as a charlatan to all sides now, he has no principles left on which to stand, and few friends left to defend him.
SOURCE
 
Even though getting out is good, I have a feeling if we don't keep a base there with some odd number of troops that we will just be back there again one day in the future.
 
Personally I don't care about the number of times a politician flip-flops just as long as he comes to the correct solution at then end.

To me the fact that Obama is willing to re-evualate his positions and make changes shows he is flexiable, willing to listen to disagreement, and to recognize mistakes. As opposed to sticking your hand in the sand, deny reality and stubbornly refusing to make changes to a plan which as clearly not worked.

John McCain claims that he can win the war by 2013 (end of 1st Term coincidentially), I think thats a pretty bold claim from someone whose Iraq strategy sounds a lot like the current president especially when you consider the Arabs history of resisting Western Occupiers that goes back to the Roman Era. I am convinced that as long as a single US soldier is stationed in Iraq there will be violence there.

Furthermore, even if everything happens the way McCain forsees it what will have America gained by this in 2013? By the same token, how much will it have cost us? Iraq has already cost us plenty so far. Will the gain cover the cost? It hasn't so far. Its just pouring good into bad.
 
Last edited:
I can't argue that too much unfortunately because I want to, hahahaha. I think the one thing we will gain though is not allowing it to become a hell hole for Iran to use to launch terrorist attacks against us. I am sure their is more to it than that but I think that's an important aspect.

Additionally, I think McCain was on the right track with the strategy he wanted to use which is closer to what is current, long before the President decided to change strategy. I like President Bush and one thing that kept getting on my nerves was all the stay the course crap, BS, we want some daggone details more than that for us nosey peeps.

As far as lives are concerned, illegal immigrants in this country kill more Americans per year than we have lost in any same year in Iraq. THe current plan has worked, I don't think anyone has stuck their head in the sand. It may have appeared that way under Rumsfeld's military leadership (although we don't know all the details he was basing his decision making on) but now I think we are doing a much more competent job there.
 
Last edited:
I can't argue that too much unfortunately because I want to, hahahaha. I think the one thing we will gain though is not allowing it to become a hell hole for Iran to use to launch terrorist attacks against us. I am sure their is more to it than that but I think that's an important aspect.

Additionally, I think McCain was on the right track with the strategy he wanted to use which is closer to what is current, long before the President decided to change strategy. I like President Bush and one thing that kept getting on my nerves was all the stay the course crap, BS, we want some daggone details more than that for us nosey peeps.

As far as lives are concerned, illegal immigrants in this country kill more Americans per year than we have lost in any same year in Iraq. THe current plan has worked, I don't think anyone has stuck their head in the sand. It may have appeared that way under Rumsfeld's military leadership but now I think we are doing a much more competent job there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The chances that Iraq becomes a terrorist sanctuary is extremely remote.
You ignore the fact that Iraq is mostly Shiite, do you think the Shiites (and Iran and Syria for that matter) are going to allow for al-qaeda (who are Whabbi Sunni) set up a terrorist shop in their backyard? Remember the Whabbis spend the past 800 years persecuting the Shiites, as did Saddam. It was al qaeda that was setting up suicide bombs in Shiites neighborhoods, I'm sure that hasn't been forgotten either. Shiites hate the Sunni much more than they hate us. Al Qaeda lost in Iraq, not because of the USA but because the other Sunni resistence groups turned against them (because they decided living in the 13th century Caliphate wasnt such a good idea after all) which is the REAL reason security has improved, not because of the surge. The Iraqis don't want us back, so they certainly arnt going to throw out a welcome mat to us by inviting al qaeda first.

Thats why Afghanistan which COULD re-become a terrorist sancturay is the real threat to us and Iraq is nothing more than an expensive sideshow.

I'll say it again. The Muslims don't like Christians in general, and they really dont like Christian Armies on their soil. The Iraqis have routinely told us to get out now. President al Maliki (our supposed ally) did so again just two days ago. Mind you, he said now, not in 2013. In the history of the world no western Army has pacified the Arabs, not the Romans, not the Crusaders, not Napoleon, not the various British attempts, not the French in Algeria, not even the USA (Lebanon in 83, Saudi Arabia in 96). As long as we stay in Iraq we will pay a price in blood, thats the part none of the GOP in politics seem to understand. They put their ideology and pride over reality.

Immigration is not related to the subject, but I wish you'd be aware that, The illegal "immigrants" that kill Americans are not really immigrates but smugglers, traffikers, and other criminals who sneak into the USA to commit crimes, not to find work or start a new life. There is also the little matter of the estimated 3 Trillion Dollars we are going to spend on this mess. I can thing of alot better uses for that astromonical sum of money, most of which has come from loans from our "friends" China and Saudi Arabia.
 
Last edited:
Those are some pretty good points actually.
A lot of detail that a lot of us haven't really considered. A pullout with advisers left to help train the Iraqi Army may be a far better alternative. The next step would be to bring English speaking Iraqi officers (NCOs in Iraq are not like NCOs in America or Britain and are more like old Privates) to the US and attend the military schools there. As for Al Qaeda... Maybe a Iraq vs Al Qaeda is exactly what Iraq needs to get together as a country.
 
Combatus interuptus... unlike coitus interuptus it is effective at preventing the shedding of tears.
 
like Bill Clinton did of course. Gotta wonder what kind of craziness he would implement for the military. Clintoon offered the don't ask don't tell, I guess next Dem will offer make up kits to males that want em.
 
like Bill Clinton did of course. Gotta wonder what kind of craziness he would implement for the military. Clintoon offered the don't ask don't tell, I guess next Dem will offer make up kits to males that want em.
-----------------------------------------------

I knew who you are referring to, but you're totally wrong, a common Republican spin construed by the right to cover up their own mistakes. AKA "The Blame Clinton" excuse.

FACT:

The President who cut the Reagan military budget was George Bush first in 1989, and then again most prominently in 1993. Overall the Bush cut was 22%.

From Factchecker.org the NH debates...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_gop_field.html

"Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that occurred in large part under President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. He said that “the Army had been at 725,000; it’s down to 500,000.” That’s true, but it was down to 572,423 by the time Clinton took office".

Now Clinton did cut military spending too but his overall cut was nowhere near as large as Bush did and certainly not by 30% claimed by Guiliani (a flat lie), the real number is about 16%. Funny how the right chooses not to report these little details isn't it?
 
Well, it looks as though US may now be looking at success in the removal of Al Queda et all from Iraq, militarily, who may well be high-tailing it back to Afghanistan.

These endeavours should not be endangered by easing the grip on their throats or by over-looking the knives in the back from Iran.

.
 
It seems to be little use of talking about the brains needed for fighting, if troops are just moved about from one hell to another. The Iraq war has brought nothing but death and financial ruin to the USA. Does anybody really believe that Afgahnistan will be different? The way to peace does not come with a sword, if that had been the case, we would have seen no more wars after Cain slayed Able.
 
Last edited:
Actually the Iraq war hasn't brought financial ruin to the US. Both events aren't very strongly linked as people like to believe. It's brought about other factors of which we are discussing one in the political forum I believe.
 
Back
Top