Facts on the ground, the Iraqi refusal to grant American troops immunity from their laws, has finally ended the most futile war in our history.
Iraq eager to see U.S. troops leave
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-us-troops-20111023,0,1226908.story
In conversations with The Associated Press, Iraqis across the political, religious and geographic spectrum on Saturday questioned what more than eight years of war and tens of thousands of Iraqi and U.S. lives lost had wrought on their country. They wondered how their still struggling democracy could face the challenges ahead.
“Neither the Iraqis nor the Americans have won here,” said Adnan Omar, a Sunni from the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.
Rifaat Khazim, a Shiite from the southern city of Basra, said, “I do not think that this withdrawal will bring anything better to Iraq or that Iraqi leaders will be able to achieve stability and security in this country. Most of the Iraqis yearn now for Saddam’s time. Now, Iraq is defenseless in the face of the threats by the neighboring countries.”
The legacy of this neo-Con war will become known when the true victors, the ayatollahs in Iran, dominate Iraq or there is another war that involves the United States and Tehran.
U.S. Troops to Leave Iraq by Year’s End, Obama Says
By MARK LANDLER
Published: October 21, 2011
WASHINGTON — President Obama announced on Friday that the last American soldier would leave Iraq by the end of this year, drawing to a close a divisive eight-year war that cost the lives of more than 4,400 troops, defined the presidency of George W. Bush, and helped ignite his own political rise.
The decision leaves only a vestigial presence of Marine embassy guards and liaison officers staying on where more than a million troops, in all, have served.
The president’s statement, coming a day after a NATO air campaign hastened the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, was laden with symbolism, marking the ebb tide of a decade of American military engagement that began after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It also capped a remarkable period of foreign-policy accomplishments for a president who is hindered by a poor economy at home.
For Mr. Obama, whose rise to the White House was based partly on his opposition to the Iraq war but who as president ordered a troop buildup in Afghanistan and intensified drone strikes against militants in the region, the announcement fulfills a campaign promise. Its timing, after Colonel Qaddafi’s death and the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and just as the administration was taking its toughest stance yet on Pakistan’s reluctance to root out militants along its border with Afghanistan, may help insulate him from Republican charges that he is weak on national security.
“Today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,” the president said in a midday appearance at the White House. Anticipating what he called “another season of homecomings,” he declared, “Our troops will definitely be home for the holidays.”
The complete withdrawal, which his political critics decried and his military team had worked hard to avert, was propelled by an irreconcilable dispute between the United States and Iraq over the legal immunity of a small force of military trainers that the Pentagon had planned to leave in the country. Though the president left open the possibility that trainers might still advise Iraqi troops, military officials said the chance of putting any significant American force there was slim.
Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, among others, scorned Mr. Obama for putting the sacrifices of American troops at risk and questioned whether the president had been motivated by “naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government.”
Mr. Obama gave word of the decision to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who faces rough political crosswinds of his own over the timing of the departure, in a video conference call. Mr. Obama’s aides described the call as “poignant,” with the Iraqi leader expressing thanks for the sacrifices of American soldiers. As of Jan. 1, 2012, Mr. Obama said, the two countries will begin “a normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”
The agreement to leave Iraq this year dates from late 2008, when Mr. Bush, before leaving office, made a farewell visit to Baghdad that was disrupted when an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at him and denounced him as a “dog.” American military officials had wanted a “residual” force of as many as tens of thousands of soldiers to remain past 2011 as an insurance policy against future violence.
Those numbers were scaled back, but the expectation was that 3,000 to 5,000 American troops would remain. Some top American military officials were dismayed by the decision, saying Mr. Obama was putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.
Pentagon lawyers insisted that the Iraqi Parliament grant soldiers immunity from legal prosecution. In recent weeks, American negotiators in Baghdad concluded that it would be impossible to obtain that protection, essentially scuttling any chance of a substantial troop presence there next year.
Mr. Obama and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta kept the door open to further talks on trainers. While civilian and military officials characterized the withdrawal as a clean break, negotiations could always resume.
“As I told Prime Minister Maliki, we will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces,” Mr. Obama said. “After all, there will be some difficult days ahead for Iraq, and the United States will continue to have an interest in an Iraq that is stable, secure and self-reliant.”
At the Pentagon, however, senior officials said that without a change in the tenor of Iraqi domestic politics, it was unlikely that any enduring American military presence could be negotiated with the Iraqi government.
Instead, these officials said, the two countries might look to create what one Pentagon official called “a smaller footprint and more flexible relationship.” That might include organizing joint exercises, inviting Iraqi officers to American military schools and offering to train Iraqis in other Middle Eastern nations where the United States has a presence.
“We’re prepared to meet their training needs, we’re prepared to engage in exercises with them, we’re prepared to provide guidance and training with regard to their pilots,” Mr. Panetta told reporters traveling with him to Indonesia.
The United States will still keep about 160 military personnel to guard its embassy in Baghdad and manage the continuing military relationship. There will also be 4,000 to 5,000 private State Department security contractors, as well as a significant C.I.A. presence. In Afghanistan, about 95,000 American troops remain.
“We fought to give Iraqis a choice,” said a frustrated senior officer who was not authorized to speak publicly about the White House’s decision. Another officer said, “Bottom line, it is a failure of the Iraqi government.”
American officials continued to express concern about gaps in Iraq’s security capabilities to withstand what they view as continuing threats of sectarian violence and Iran’s malign influence. But political pressure in Iraq to end the American occupation gradually came to dominate military imperatives.
“Iraq is a highly nationalistic country, and we were not able to dislodge the view that they should not have foreign troops on their soil,” said Christopher R. Hill, a former American ambassador to Iraq who is now dean of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.
Mr. Obama’s announcement drew mixed reactions in Washington, with Democrats generally approving while Republicans voiced fears that security gains in Iraq could be reversed without an American presence.
“While I’m concerned that a full withdrawal could jeopardize those gains,” Speaker John A. Boehner said in a statement, “I’m hopeful that both countries will work together to guarantee that a free and democratic Iraq remains a strong and stable partner for the United States in the Middle East.”
News of the American withdrawal was met with scattered celebrations in Iraq. In Sadr City, the Shiite district in Baghdad that is a bastion of anti-American sentiment, roughly 1,000 people celebrated under the picture of young Shiite men who had been killed by American troops.
“The United States here was just like Saddam Hussein,” said Muslim Mohammed, 42, a government employee. “We never thought we’d get rid of Saddam, and we thought his sons would just take over. We thought the Americans would never leave and they would just create excuses to stay longer and longer.”
Mr. Obama, however, has stuck to his plans to end the combat mission and withdraw all troops, in part because he wants to channel energy to reviving the economy. “After a decade of war,” he declared, “the nation that we need to build — and the nation that we will build — is our own.”
Paul
Minneapolis
October 21st, 2011
2:19 pm
I worry about what happens to Iraq after the withdrawal. The future of Iraq is not bright.
That future, however, cannot be the responsibility of the US forever. The military has done about all it can in the way of nation-building; at this point, if US military presence is still necessary, it’s only as a crutch, a flood wall that is artificially holding off the Iraqi’s own internal strife.
In short, if we’re not leaving now, we’re never leaving. As so many have put it, we need nation building here at home.
Bravo to the president for making the tough call and doing the right thing. I’m sure he was under tremendous pressure from some of his generals to stay longer.
Meredith
Brooklyn, NY
October 21st, 2011
2:20 pm
The whole thing is so very sad. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, millions of people dispaced, the country in ruins, thousands of Americans dead or injured, and over a trillion dollars down the tubes. We never should have been there. The entire premise was a sham. Finally we are getting out.
GZ
Atlanta, Ga
October 21st, 2011
2:23 pm
Thank God!!! As the mother of a U.S. Marine, I am overjoyed. Bring home all of our children and leave them here for good. Give them jobs and education, that has been promised to the military. Let all of the old men who still want to fight useless wars in far off lands, go on themselves.
Jason
DC
October 21st, 2011
3:54 pm
To everyone commenting about “a way to kick off Obama’s re-election” consider:
1) It was a campaign promise that he made and now he’s fulfilled it. I don’t care when it comes; a politician delivering on a promise that they made improves my view of them, i.e. makes me more likely to vote for him. If he had said: “It’ll be done by year 2 of my next term”, then it’s “no mas” in my view.
2) When exactly does campaign season end and begin in this country anymore? Cause, I could probably make a case that this campaign season began in November 2008 and I could definitely make one for November 2010. I’ve even heard people say that this president is “always in campaign mode”. If that’s the case, then it doesn’t matter that an election is in a year because the campaign has been going on since the last one.
In short, stop being cynical about motives and enjoy the facts that a politician has kept a campaign promise and our troops are coming home. (Both are rare things these days.)
Thanks, Mr. President!
Hank
Brooklyn, NY
October 21st, 2011
3:54 pm
I’m no economist, but I do remember reading in my Econ 101 textbook that for certain purposes you actually can put a value on human life – weighing the costs of new street lights versus the number of deaths they are expected to prevent, for example. My book roughly estimated the price of a human life at $10 million, and considering it was penned by Greg Mankiw that’s probably a low estimate. But if we take that number for what it is, we get: $10 million x (4,400 American soldiers + 103,100 Iraqi citizens) = $1,075,000,000,000 or $1.075 trillion.
Maybe newspapers should add that extra trillion in when they state the cost of the Iraq War.
HIGHLIGHT (What’s this?)
Sal
Rural Northern CA
October 21st, 2011
5:36 pm
YES! Bring ALL our troops home now. YES. Let’s provide these service troops with all the medical, financial and educational needs they will have after serving for so long. WELCOME HOME!
Let’s spend the excess war dollars on jobs building America’s infrastructure and establishing a proven-good single payer health care system for all Americans.
The future is beginning to look brighter.
Lilly Aleman
Los Angeles, CA
October 21st, 2011
8:10 pm
I remember the day Bush won his second term. I was in front of a gym in Fort Stewart, GA hoping that Kerry would win and he would end the war. When I heard that Bush won, I started crying because I knew that my husband, and Artillery Officer, would go to Iraq, and that I would have to leave my daughter 4 months after she was born. When I came back from Iraq, my daughter was walking. I was naive, to believe that we would not go, we would have gone anyways. But these news reassure me that the odds of a Republican keeping the U.S. in a war are higher than having a Democrat president. First Osama Bin Laden, then the support to Libya’s Revolution and now this?. I am voting for Obama, no matter how hard Republicans make it for minorities to vote.
Dave K
Cleveland, OH
October 21st, 2011
9:37 pm
So we’re now going to take much of the money we saved and put it towards the care of those veterans who are now suffering from numerous physical disabilities or PTSD, right? Right?
I’m pleased to see troops coming home (assuming it actually happens). I’m not going to be pleased if I see that they’ve come home from Iraq only to become beggars.
taxicab0
new york UES
October 21st, 2011
9:50 pm
Show of Hands, how many people think this has to do with getting re-elected.
Obama cares nothing for the troops other than as useful photo props.
Iraq will be under muslim extremist control shortly
doy1
nyc
October 21st, 2011
9:51 pm
Hallelujah, hallelujah!!!
THANK YOU, President Obama, for keeping your promises — one after another! Osama, the Health Care bill, support for Democracy in the middle east…
& hopefully, HOPEFULLY, passage of a jobs bill, even in the face of vicious Republican opposition to anything that would help the millions of people suffering in this country, just to fulfill their avowed goal of bringing down Obama — no matter the cost to this country.
And if Obama didn’t keep his promises, no doubt he’d be attacked for that! Kudos to Obama for doing this now — not waiting for a second term or a date closer to the election. (we know how quickly the American public forgets…)
Our country’s foray in Iraq has been a tragedy for everyone involved — except of course, for Halliburton, Blackwater, & other Bush/Cheney cronies and war profiteers. More tragedy may yet follow in Iraq — let’s hope and pray that stability and democracy take hold there — but keeping our troops there forever won’t help and we just can’t afford to sacrifice more American lives or our country’s dwindling resources.
God bless our brave servicemen & women! Hope we can welcome you home with jobs rebuilding our country — and all the medical care and other help you need to heal.
Tina
New Jersey
October 21st, 2011
9:51 pm
It reminds of John Kerry’s words back in 1971 “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” At some point you have to end it.
roycigar
San Diego, CA
October 21st, 2011
9:51 pm
Under Obama, we finished 2 jobs Bush could not do–end the war in Iraq and kill bin Laden and we finished the job Reagan could not do–get rid of Khadafi. Add in the fact he rescued the American auto industry and it’s about time he grew some you know what. Good job and now let’s force the GOP Presidential candidates to decide whether they are for reducing debt (pulling out of Iraq) or are simply blowing smoke.
Ian
Frederick MD
October 22nd, 2011
12:13 am
One point that should be remembered is that it is by no means clear that the average Iraqui is better off thanks to the US invasion. The Northern Kurds certainly are but those who lost their lives (one estimate is that more than one million died) most certainly are not. Sadam was a monster but he was a secularist and the theocracy that is likely to inherit power after US troop leave is going to oppress at least fifty percent of the population, that is to say women.
nudisverbis
Chicago, Illinois
October 22nd, 2011
12:13 am
Regardless of prosecutorial success, the Attorney General, Mr. Holder, should immediately seek indictments against George W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl, Wolfowitz and all other neocons who inspired George W. Bush to invade Iraq and seek non-existing weapons of mass destruction. Join all of them and let such people convince an honourable court that they were not responsible for such stupid folly. As far as I am supremely convinced, they should all be incarcerated.
JoJo
Boston, MA
October 22nd, 2011
12:13 am
#364 Taxicab says: “…Obama cares nothing for the troops…”.
I respectfully disagree — he’s saving their lives, and he uses drones as much as possible to minimize casualties. Bush, a draft dodger like Cheney the warprofiteer, and Rove, sent 4000+ of our troops to die, by starting a full-scale boots-on-the-ground unnecessary war of choice, based on lies.
EH
Las Vegas, NV
October 22nd, 2011
12:13 am
President Bush signed an agreement with Iraq called the Status of Forces Agreement on November 27, 2008. It said that all US troops would be out of the country by the end of 2011. Nothing to do with Obama keeping a campaign promise which he was supposed to keep soon after taking office. He’s taking credit where none is due as usual.
J
Here
October 22nd, 2011
12:13 am
@364 – “Show of Hands, how many people think this has to do with getting re-elected. Obama cares nothing for the troops other than as useful photo props.”
And once more, Republicans can’t decide what to complain about, only that they MUST complain.
It’s either a political ploy, as stated in the above quote above, or, as other Republicans deem it, President Obama’s carrying out of what GWB planned all along to occur at this time.
It cannot be both. If you don’t like the time frame, go take it up with Bush.
Sheesh.
Mike
Eugene, Oregon
October 22nd, 2011
12:13 am
Spin, spin, spin. The Iraq government *ordered* US troops to leave no later than 12/31/2011. And, in a further slap in the face for the “Obama Doctrine” He guardian is reporting tonight that the Iraq government refused last minute pleas by the White House to keep open even one US base there. That, in spite of billions of dollars in foreign aid offered if they permitted this. It has all turned to ashes for this pathetic jerk of a President. His trade policies are a failure, his economic and foreign policies are a disaster, he threw his supporters under a bus in favor of easy Wall Street cash, and his poll numbers are circling the drain, heading right down the sewer. Anyone want to bet that this scoundrel isn’t even a candidate come April… Of, if he is, he creates the worst election rout for a political party in US history?
www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/president-obama-announces-end-of-war-in-iraq.html
Pages
Posts
