http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announce-complete-drawdown-u-troops-iraq-end-164636933.html
As a optimist: Hooray
As a cynic: Clearly a political move right before election year in order to make Iraq a distant issue
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I'm sure the foreign advisors will stay.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
This wasn't Obama's move at all.
The decision was made, and agreed to with Iraq, back in 2008 before Obama took office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
Obama gets credit for the follow-through, but not the decision nor even the timetable.
The US troops in Vietnam were also called "advisors" for years before we really started to ramp up hostilities there. I also like how they try to make it out that "things are pretty much under control... er, except, there are daily attacks occuring around the country, particularly in the capitol."
Clayton -
Yes but apparently they are being a little sneaky...
While the White House put the likely number of private security contractors who will be in Iraq come Jan. 1 at 4,000 to 5,000, Senate Armed Services Committee member Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said Wednesday that she understands that 14,000 of the 17,000 State Department personnel that will be in Iraq after the military withdrawal could be private contractors.
And...
About 160 U.S. soldiers will remain behind under State Department authority to train Iraqi forces along with a small contingent of soldiers guarding the U.S. Embassy. There will also likely be a U.S. special operations presence in Iraq. But the announcement underscores the gaps that remain between U.S. and Iraqi priorities and political realities. Earlier this week, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said American and Iraqi officials were continuing discussions that might permit his soldiers to stay beyond the December 31 deadline. Both sides appeared to leave the door open to revising the arrangement announced on Friday. An Iraqi government advisor said after Obama's remarks that officials from both countries would discuss post-2011 trainers at their next meeting. Even without soldiers, the U.S. presence will remain substantial. U.S. officials say the embassy in Baghdad, an imposing, fortified complex by the Tigris River in Baghdad's Green Zone, will be the largest in the world.
About 160 U.S. soldiers will remain behind under State Department authority to train Iraqi forces along with a small contingent of soldiers guarding the U.S. Embassy. There will also likely be a U.S. special operations presence in Iraq. But the announcement underscores the gaps that remain between U.S. and Iraqi priorities and political realities. Earlier this week, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said American and Iraqi officials were continuing discussions that might permit his soldiers to stay beyond the December 31 deadline.
Both sides appeared to leave the door open to revising the arrangement announced on Friday. An Iraqi government advisor said after Obama's remarks that officials from both countries would discuss post-2011 trainers at their next meeting. Even without soldiers, the U.S. presence will remain substantial. U.S. officials say the embassy in Baghdad, an imposing, fortified complex by the Tigris River in Baghdad's Green Zone, will be the largest in the world.
This is all modeled on European colonialism. First you invade and knock out the ruling regime. Then, you stay long enough to prove that you're really in control while you interview the local leadership to figure out who the true sell-outs are so you can appoint them in a brand-new government with unqualified loyalty to you, the colonial power. Then, you train them up an army. Then you pull your big guns out and leave a small contingent of troops under the sole control of the "ambassador" who is really a minder for the loyalist, indigenous governor (to make sure he stays loyal). The small contingent of troops are just there to put down any attempt at a military coup - this might happen if one or more of the generals managed to keep their true, nationalist sympathies a secret while jumping through the colonialist's hoops.
Everyone does realize this is the same guy who said all this...right?
Obama is not leaving because he wants to! This is the big myth. The Iraqi government and people are basically demanding that the US leave. Washington wanted to stay a bit longer and leave a bit of a presence there, but they said NO. Now the administration wants to spin it to make it look like the president did something besides tuck his tail and say OK we'll leave:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraqi-insistence-not-u-s-choice-20111021
Nonsense. The Iraqi government is now a vassal of the US, like Japan or most South American countries. We're not "leaving", we're just turning over the grunt work to the locals while we maintain colonial power.
You guys are probably going to think that I am crazy but you are both right. The people in power are favorable to us interests, but not so favorable as to continue to tolerate blanket immunity. And the pols know that americans will not tolerate an american servicemember being tried in an iraqi court. So this was the more preferable option to reconquering iraq, because at this stage in the game, iraqi army and iraqi police are doing all the security.
They couldn't get away with extending the stay of the tens of thousands of US troops currently on the ground because it's politically infeasible within the US. There's no way an Iraqi court could try a US military servicemember, just look at what happens on Okinawa all the time.
I agree with everything you said. I would simply add that the political situation in okinawa would be politically unacceptable for the vast majority of iraqis.
I don't think it's politically acceptable to a majority of Okinawans, either. Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama was forced out of office after he tried to hold a referendum on the Futenma Airbase a few years back. I don't think that happened without the US government's involvement and it wouldn't have happened if the referendum was expected to go the way the US gov't would want it to go.
Wikipedia is a bad reference!!! Anyone can edit it. Have any others? I'm interested to see a more credible source.
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" -Patrick Henry
The difference is that the iraqis have spent eight years proving that they will do something about it. We didnt pull our troops out of the populated areas because we wanted to. The "anbar awakening" was an "american awakening" to the truth about counterinsurgenc as much as anything else.
Relevant
Brutus:Wikipedia is a bad reference!!! Anyone can edit it. Have any others? I'm interested to see a more credible source.
Seriously? You sound like 50-something working stiff. Get with the program.
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts Reliability_of_Wikipedia
burnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
I'm very skeptical of Wikipedia in the social sciences. Not so much in the natural sciences. This isn't to say that I am not skeptical with written sources. It is just when you are in a field in which is constantly invaded by other social sciences who continually do bad jobs, it hardens your heart.