Comments on: Obama Ends Major Combat Operations in Iraq

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:14:35 +0000

Obama said all US troops (no reference to combat/non-combat) will be gone by 2011. It was an extra 2 or 3 months than his original intent. I don't see how this could be considered as vindication for McCain who thought there would be residual troops in iraq indefinitely.

Maybe I missed something somewhere where Obama said there would "a sizable force in theater for the foreseeable future which will be in harm’s way."

Because everything I see is "There are currently about 142,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq, according to the Defense Department. Under terms of an agreement reached with Iraqi leaders last year, the U.S. must remove troops from Iraqi cities by the end of June and, as the Obama plan reinforces, withdraw its forces altogether by the end of 2011" -- politifact.

By: Frank Warner

Frank Warner — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:53:05 +0000

Since everyone from John McCain to Barack Obama agrees our American GIs have succeeded in Iraq, and will have everything fairly well secured by the end of August next year, it’s time for a Washington, D.C., Iraq Victory Parade, Aug. 28, 2010. Invite all Iraq war veterans. Salute the liberators!

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:53:05 +0000

I think that it's entirely dependent on how conditions in Iraq develop and that's how it should be. Right now, as I noted in my post, things are actually pretty much under control and becoming more so. It's appropriate for us to start planning our withdrawal. I'd hope that the plans would include contingencies for slowing or speeding up depending on new developments. As to what the Iraqi government will want in two years, who know? If they're in control of the entire country by that time, why shouldn't we leave? If they aren't I think we'd be fools if we didn't expect them to ask us to stay.

By: steve

steve — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:45:53 +0000

I guess you assume we will renegotiate the SOFA requiring we be out entirely by 2011? I am not so sure the Iraqi ruling class, ie Maliki and co., will go for that.

Steve

By: upyernoz

upyernoz — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:22:00 +0000

he demonstrated that he could learn and that his positions could quickly evolve in light of new understanding. i'm kind of curious, how do you think his position on iraq has "evolved"? the only difference i can see is he's added three months to his withdrawal timetable--and even when he first announced his timetable he noted that the 16 months could be stretched out as he consulted with military advisors. throughout the presidential campaign he always noted that he was only talking about combat troops, and was slammed by the left back in 2007 for endorsing the idea of leaving a "residual force." if anything, obama has been remarkably consistent on iraq. his speech yesterday didn't seem like any change from what he's been promising since the primary season.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:07:04 +0000

I don't think anyone believed we were signing up for 50,000 plus for the next 5 years when this started nor did anyone predict it would go as bad as it did. I will stick by my prediction that we will be at over 100,000 next Jan and over 50,000 in Aug 2010. You can call them non-combat troops but when they are armed to the teeth they are combat soldiers plain and simple. Hell, we are still in Kosovo; we won't be leaving Iraq in the next 10 years.