• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraqis wary of decision on U.S. troops

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
27,254
Reaction score
9,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Me too! Anyone else interested (besides many Iraqis) in holding Obama's feet to the fire to keep his promise to have all Military troops out of Iraq by the end of the year?

Iraqis wary of decision on U.S. troops

"The Obama administration is ready to play ball on keeping thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond this year. But for Iraq's government, in the words of one lawmaker, the issue is like playing with fire.

No amount of advising, cajoling or even pushing by Washington so far has spurred Baghdad to decide if it really wants all 46,000 American troops currently in Iraq to leave by Dec. 31, as required by a security agreement. Negotiations between the two nations have not even started, and it likely will be weeks if not months more before they do.

Even if Iraq asks the U.S. to keep troops here, there are no guarantees Baghdad ultimately will let it happen. Iraq's parliament almost certainly will have to agree, and lawmakers are leery of embracing the American military.

"It's a fireball. No one can hold it," Sadiq al-Rikabi, an influential Shiite Muslim lawmaker and ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said Wednesday with a wan smile.

So far, al-Rikabi said, political enemies have used the troops quandary to taint their rivals: "The head of the political blocs want to throw it to another party to burn them."

The U.S. has made clear that President Barack Obama is seeking to keep thousands of American forces in Iraq past 2011 for the sake of security despite his campaign promise to bring all the troops home by the end of the year. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking Tuesday in Washington, said "the United States will be willing to say yes" if Iraq asks for the troops to stay.

It's widely believed that Baghdad will, in fact, ask. But so far, "there is no negotiation," a senior diplomat at the U.S. Embassy said Wednesday. "There is no formalized or even informal request."

The White House is willing to keep 10,000 to 12,000 forces in Iraq for a limited time, according to a senior administration official in Washington. A senior U.S. military official in Baghdad said the administration is weighing what the troops' mission would be before setting a new deadline for them to go home.

A senior Iraqi lawmaker said the U.S. forces will remain on nine bases in hotspots across the nation and stay up to four years longer or right before Obama, if re-elected in 2012, leaves office.

All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the internal government talks frankly.

Iraqi Kurds and most Sunni Muslim leaders want American forces to stay, as do many Shiite politicians.

In an interview Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said Iraq's air force and navy are not ready to defend the nation's air space or waters, leaving its lucrative oil exports vulnerable.

Within Iraq, security forces are still battling an active if weakened al-Qaida. They also have to contend with Shiite militia attacks on politicians and security forces, and the specter of ethnic violence between Kurds and Arabs over disputed oil-rich lands in the north.

But keeping American forces in Iraq risks the political and potentially lethal wrath of two of al-Maliki's most powerful if uneasy Shiite allies: Iran and the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Prodded by Iran, al-Sadr put aside years of fighting with al-Maliki and provided the crucial support to let the prime minister keep his job in a coalition government after national elections in 2010 resulted in no clear winner. Al-Sadr's supporters now control key government agencies and have threatened to revolt if the U.S. troops they term "occupiers" remain in Iraq in 2012."


Iraqis wary of decision on U.S. troops - The Times-Gazette - Hillsboro, OH
 
Me too! Anyone else interested (besides many Iraqis) in holding Obama's feet to the fire to keep his promise to have all Military troops out of Iraq by the end of the year?

Iraqis wary of decision on U.S. troops

"The Obama administration is ready to play ball on keeping thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond this year. But for Iraq's government, in the words of one lawmaker, the issue is like playing with fire.

No amount of advising, cajoling or even pushing by Washington so far has spurred Baghdad to decide if it really wants all 46,000 American troops currently in Iraq to leave by Dec. 31, as required by a security agreement. Negotiations between the two nations have not even started, and it likely will be weeks if not months more before they do.

Even if Iraq asks the U.S. to keep troops here, there are no guarantees Baghdad ultimately will let it happen. Iraq's parliament almost certainly will have to agree, and lawmakers are leery of embracing the American military.

"It's a fireball. No one can hold it," Sadiq al-Rikabi, an influential Shiite Muslim lawmaker and ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said Wednesday with a wan smile.

So far, al-Rikabi said, political enemies have used the troops quandary to taint their rivals: "The head of the political blocs want to throw it to another party to burn them."

The U.S. has made clear that President Barack Obama is seeking to keep thousands of American forces in Iraq past 2011 for the sake of security despite his campaign promise to bring all the troops home by the end of the year. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking Tuesday in Washington, said "the United States will be willing to say yes" if Iraq asks for the troops to stay.

It's widely believed that Baghdad will, in fact, ask. But so far, "there is no negotiation," a senior diplomat at the U.S. Embassy said Wednesday. "There is no formalized or even informal request."

The White House is willing to keep 10,000 to 12,000 forces in Iraq for a limited time, according to a senior administration official in Washington. A senior U.S. military official in Baghdad said the administration is weighing what the troops' mission would be before setting a new deadline for them to go home.

A senior Iraqi lawmaker said the U.S. forces will remain on nine bases in hotspots across the nation and stay up to four years longer or right before Obama, if re-elected in 2012, leaves office.

All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the internal government talks frankly.

Iraqi Kurds and most Sunni Muslim leaders want American forces to stay, as do many Shiite politicians.

In an interview Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said Iraq's air force and navy are not ready to defend the nation's air space or waters, leaving its lucrative oil exports vulnerable.

Within Iraq, security forces are still battling an active if weakened al-Qaida. They also have to contend with Shiite militia attacks on politicians and security forces, and the specter of ethnic violence between Kurds and Arabs over disputed oil-rich lands in the north.

But keeping American forces in Iraq risks the political and potentially lethal wrath of two of al-Maliki's most powerful if uneasy Shiite allies: Iran and the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Prodded by Iran, al-Sadr put aside years of fighting with al-Maliki and provided the crucial support to let the prime minister keep his job in a coalition government after national elections in 2010 resulted in no clear winner. Al-Sadr's supporters now control key government agencies and have threatened to revolt if the U.S. troops they term "occupiers" remain in Iraq in 2012."


Iraqis wary of decision on U.S. troops - The Times-Gazette - Hillsboro, OH


the Iraqi govt doesn't want all the troops to leave. even they are smart enough to realize that if all the troops leave, then all the $$$$ being spent in Iraq to support them leaves as well.
 
the Iraqi govt doesn't want all the troops to leave. even they are smart enough to realize that if all the troops leave, then all the $$$$ being spent in Iraq to support them leaves as well.

at this point i don't give a goddamn what they want. if they are not ready now, they never will be.
 
at this point i don't give a goddamn what they want. if they are not ready now, they never will be.

my only concern is that I don't want to have to go back over there AGAIN in another 10 years to start the same damn process over.
 
my only concern is that I don't want to have to go back over there AGAIN in another 10 years to start the same damn process over.

we didn't "have to" go there in the first place. and now, we are babysitting and not being paid for it. at some point we have to let them be responsible for themselves.
 
What obligation will we have if we leave and another country takes advantage of our absense and Iraq's weak army?
 
we didn't "have to" go there in the first place. and now, we are babysitting and not being paid for it. at some point we have to let them be responsible for themselves.

"we" didn't...but "I" did. no one asked me if I wanted to go to Iraq. They just shoved a set of orders in my hands and put my ass on a plane. that's what I'm talking about. at least the situation is somewhat stable now. I do agree that they should be paying us for our support. maybe with some of that oil we were supposed to be over there stealing
 
Last edited:
the Iraqi govt doesn't want all the troops to leave. even they are smart enough to realize that if all the troops leave, then all the $$$$ being spent in Iraq to support them leaves as well.

So far no one in the Iraqi government is brave enough to come out and support US troops remaining in their country beyond your Dec 31st agreement to have them out. I am more interested however if the American people will agree to our troops staying there beyond our Dec 31st agreement to have them out. I am guessing the majority of Americans are not as supportive of Obama' Iraq policy as you are.
 
"we" didn't...but "I" did. no one asked me if I wanted to go to Iraq. They just shoved a set of orders in my hands and put my ass on a plane. that's what I'm talking about. at least the situation is somewhat stable now. I do agree that they should be paying us for our support. maybe with some of that oil we were supposed to be over there stealing

they should be paying the full freight for our support now.
 
So far no one in the Iraqi government is brave enough to come out and support US troops remaining in their country beyond your Dec 31st agreement to have them out. I am more interested however if the American people will agree to our troops staying there beyond our Dec 31st agreement to have them out. I am guessing the majority of Americans are not as supportive of Obama' Iraq policy as you are.

dude, get a clue, every 6-8 months they sign some new freakin agreement to allow US troops to stay another 6 months or a year. and what makes you think I support Obama's Iraq policy? I just stated the plain and simple truth.
 
they should be paying the full freight for our support now.

agreed. if we are going to serve as their police force, they should pay us
 
Unfortunately this is the normal policy of the US. Here we are nearly a century later and we still have troops in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and I am sure we will maintain a presence in Iraq for the forseeable future.
 
What obligation will we have if we leave and another country takes advantage of our absense and Iraq's weak army?

Should have thought about that before we removed the government that was keeping Iraq's enemies at bay with bluffs. They've had 8 years to get their **** together. If they haven't done it by now, they never will, and we simply can't afford to keep protecting the government we set up from their own people.
 
I'm on the fence on payment. The people of Iraq weren't safe from their leaders, but they were relatively safe from outsiders. Then we go in, get rid of the leaders, and weaken their entire security infrastructure. The elite team Saddam had isn't the same team they have now. So we leave while they're in a weakened state as a direct result of our actions...and they're vulnerable. If they legitimately need more time to strengthen their national security I'm not so sure I'd be fighting mad if they didn't pay.

That said, though...I worry about "oil for troops". People already believe we were there for oil. If we make an agreement on oil in exchange for protection it will just prove their point.
 
Should have thought about that before we removed the government that was keeping Iraq's enemies at bay with bluffs. They've had 8 years to get their **** together. If they haven't done it by now, they never will, and we simply can't afford to keep protecting the government we set up from their own people.

So now it's just, "oh well, we're done...good luck!"?? We'll essentially risk punishing the citizens of Iraq for our decisions?
 
dude, get a clue, every 6-8 months they sign some new freakin agreement to allow US troops to stay another 6 months or a year. and what makes you think I support Obama's Iraq policy? I just stated the plain and simple truth.

You are wrong. There has been no change in the date (Dec 31, 2011) established under the S.O.F.A. signed by the US and Iraq under the Bush Administration.
 
So now it's just, "oh well, we're done...good luck!"?? We'll essentially risk punishing the citizens of Iraq for our decisions?

it's not like it's 2007. it's been 8 years.
 
Unfortunately this is the normal policy of the US. Here we are nearly a century later and we still have troops in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and I am sure we will maintain a presence in Iraq for the forseeable future.

a presence is fine. 50k troops is not.
 
it's not like it's 2007. it's been 8 years.

Right. And the Iraqi army is largely made up of men who had no prior access to defense training of any kind. How many years did it take America to become legitimately secure after/during the Revolutionary war?
 
So now it's just, "oh well, we're done...good luck!"?? We'll essentially risk punishing the citizens of Iraq for our decisions?

The Iraqis demanded all our troops be out of Iraq by Dec 31 of this year. We have a signed agreement to that effect.
 
a presence is fine. 50k troops is not.

The White House never said anthing about leaving all 50k. From the article:

The White House is willing to keep 10,000 to 12,000 forces in Iraq for a limited time, according to a senior administration official in Washington. A senior U.S. military official in Baghdad said the administration is weighing what the troops' mission would be before setting a new deadline for them to go home.
 
The Iraqis demanded all our troops be out of Iraq by Dec 31 of this year. We have a signed agreement to that effect.

it's like they've been using training wheels for 3 years.......enough is enough.
 
A few thoughts

1) If we're going to keep thousands of troops in Iraq for the sake of security, would it really be worth it? What would be the cost of withdrawing all those troops, exactly?

2) If Baghdad ultimately wants us out, do we really have a say in the matter?
 
The Iraqis demanded all our troops be out of Iraq by Dec 31 of this year. We have a signed agreement to that effect.

I'm not arguing that fact. I'm saying if they ask us to stay longer based on a legitmate safety risk we need to weight our decision carefully. Not just cut tail and run 'cause "we never should have been there".
 
Right. And the Iraqi army is largely made up of men who had no prior access to defense training of any kind. How many years did it take America to become legitimately secure after/during the Revolutionary war?

the iraqis have been trained now and are 300k strong. they have taken over bases......let them fight their fights now, usually with each other. if iran rears its ugly head, we might welcome the opportunity to put them in their place. but the iraqis need to take care of the iraqis.
 
Back
Top Bottom