Don't diminish what has begun in Iraq today....

The Iraqis celebrating in the streets is a seminal moment.


....and they, and the rest of the middle east, will associate the next several months of pulling out with Obama.


It will continue to make it difficult for al Qaida and other groups to foment anti-American hatred and severely harm their recruiting efforts.


The U.S., and the whole world, dodged a big bullet when Obama was elected instead of McCain.

This is the Bush plan with shiny packaging. Don't be fooled.

ALL TROOPS HOME NOW!

A small residual force... not unlike what we still have in Germany... is the plan.


Would you consider our armed forces in Germany to be an "occupying force"? Germans don't.

Why keep troops in the region if America's wars of agression are behind us?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/the-medias-premature-cele_b_223021.html

As long as it is small, residual, and doesn't interfere with the government of Iraq, I have no problem with it.

I have no problem with our forces in Germany or South Korea either. They're not "occupying forces" and they don't interfere with the governing of their host country.

"NBC's Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszeswki reported that "one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years."

"President Obama also has 250,000 "contractors" (some armed, some unarmed) in Iraq and Afghanistan... There are no withdrawal dates for private contractors."

Read up. The information is out there.

Ever heard of the term YANKEE GO HOME? Ther Germans would just love to get rid of us, if it weren't for the special interests making millions with the Americans there.

You know, a majority of Germans is totally opposed to having a staging base for wars in their country. Even if they are not regarded as an "occupiyng force" they are using the bases as an integral part to occupying other countries - something many germans don't like.

...and many Germans have no problem with.


"many" is not a majority..... and "many" Germans don't have a problemw with our presence (and the protection it provides) at all.

Make a poll - ask the german population if they are OK with Rammstein being used to bomb the shit out of brown people. I'm not so sure they're in love with the idea.

Somehow I feel secure claiming this, living in a German speaking country.

Remember the debate they had after becoming the target of islamic terrorism? I remember the protests against the war and against using german soil for the war effort. Pretty distinctly. Didn't seem like a minority to me.

And what is that protection you are talking about? I read this claim all the time yet I have never heard this opinion in Europe. DO you honestly believe US forces are in Germany to protect germans? Really? I would have given you that point 40 years ago, not today.

Ok scheming, you convinced me...WW2 ended over 60 years ago and germany became one country a long time ago also. Ronnie Raygun ended the cold war singlehandedly so we don't have that menace anymore. So bring them home from germany also.

That goes for italy, japan, south korea and anyplace else outside the us territory. It's time our defense is for us and not the corporate interests.

Just think of the household goods shipping savings when no more cuckoo clocks come back from the black forest.

They're building this masterstructure-iraqi-embassy-like CIA headquarters for Europe in the city I live and the resentment can be heard even from the most bourgeois-pro-american of tongues.

Time to go home. There's no need for either the bases or the headquarters as long as you don't plan on fucking with other nations issues.

Paul Rieckhoff with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America was on Rachel Maddowe back when the plan was announced, and he said that the plan was really not much different than what was going on currently. Rieckoff said it was pretty much nothing but a mission name change. The troops would be engagig in the very same activities/responsibilities they are now and would be facing the very same dangers. And he also said that this plan called for a {b]significant{/b] force to be left behind indefinitely. And there is no accounting for the multitude of "security forces" we have hired over there and that will remain.

I'm am sorry, but that is UNACCEPTABLE.

We have ZERO business being in Iraq.

We need all our soldiers OUT, period.

"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. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal." - Obama

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/07/obama_clarifies_can_remove_com.html

Another "strategy" of his was to simply relabel them to non-combat troops (trainers) and withdraw all combat troops. Unfortunately, this statement was made last July.

By November, Bush signed an agreement that undercut Obama and required ALL troops to be withdrawn by the end of 2011. Part of this agreement also stipulated troops would leave urban areas by June 30th, 2009 (does that date ring a bell?).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

if we maintain an embassy in Iraq, there will be a contingent of Marines to guard it.

I would greatly prefer it if our military would start to withdraw from the 170 countries we presently occupy. I'm sick of being asked to shoulder the burden of an imperial military to be used as hired muscle to protect the multinational corporations that are dodging their own tax burden.

We can no longer afford that post WWII DOD paradigm.

If whoever we leave there is subject to Iraqi law, then it's their country and not occupied. If our people are there for support reasons but not fighting, then that's worth considering.

A knee jerk slogan isn't a foreign policy.

I don't have a lot to add, but I wanted to flag this thread so I can come back and see what other people have to say.

My co-worker is dating a soldier stationed in Iraq. He was scheduled for leave in June and had been very upset because his leave had been denied. Today she found out that he is coming home for good in June. They denied his leave because they knew they were bringing the troops home!!!!! YAY! I hope these are signs of good things to come.

I agree with the OP - there's something not to diminish in the news of Iraqis chanting in the streets.

Let's just don't forget that while they were chanting, bombs were going off in Kirkuk...

...but in the long run, it is a good thing.

in the long run, was it a good thing?

Does anyone really believe that these people enjoy what they're doing? They are killing each other because they are jockeying for power and trying to establish parity. Whether we stay or not will not affect that outcome.

This is probably the most bogus argument I've ever heard...no wait, I heard the same ones in 1973.

the withdrawal plans. And the Iraqis don't want him to, either.

This really is the beginning of the end.

We should go faster or we should stay to secure the area?

This seems like evidence that could support either conclusion.

not sure it worked.

Your post sounds like an argument against why we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I'm probably just confused and reading this wrong.

Brain need coffee.

I tried to point out the fault in the logic. These kind of arguments work in both directions, that's why I turned his comment around.
I always forget to point out my flipping around of conclusions, nasty habit I picked studying Philosophy lol, one really can read that like an argument for staying - that wasn't my intention.

Personally I am quite happy to see the first steps of "pulling out" (remember what George Carlin said about pulling out) and wouldn't have used other plans than the current admin. (step by step; only way possible) if I had made the call maybe with the exception of the "stay behind". It's just an ambigious thing what with the bombing having cranked up this year again and everything.

Since we are still spending about the same amount and blood continues to flow, it's clear that the effect of the June 30th withdrawal is minimal.

The Results diminish what has begun in Iraq today! You can't escape it.

Could be true, but erroneous

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

"The proposed agreement, which took nearly a year to negotiate with the United States, not only sets a date for American troop withdrawal, but puts new restrictions on American combat operations in Iraq starting Jan. 1 and requires an American military pullback from urban areas by June 30. Those hard dates reflect a significant concession by the departing Bush administration, which had been publicly averse to timetables."