world

American commander: U.S. on the road out of Iraq

31 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

31 Comments
Login to comment

****U.S. on the road out of Iraq

This is one of the best announcements I've read in a long time. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's thanks to the incredibly stupid decision of the george bush, the GOP and the support of millions of their conservative supporters that this war was even started.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.S. military also plans to shrink the contractor force from roughly 130,000 to between 50,000 and 75,000 by September 2010. Those remaining would pick up additional duties from departing troops, Brown said.

In other words, the US is leaving behind a huge mercenary army, unaccountable to the Geneva Convention or other rules of war, and paid for lock, stock and barrel by US taxpayers. Some withdrawal....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

beezlebub could also have added that each mercenary, sorry "contractor", is paid a salary far higher than that of US military personnel, and that they are usually ex-US military, meaning the US taxpayer has paid for their training. Great value for the money!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can you say "cut and run"? This is Vietnam all over again. Get involved in a war based on a false premise (or outright lies) and then decide to cut and run as soon as you start taking casualties. And it ain't just the US? The other members of the "coalition of the willing" need to hang their heads in shame as well. Anyway you cut it, this is the allies raising their hands and leaving before the job at hand is done, specifically realizing a stable government in Iraq (and in Afghanistan for that matter). It makes me sick to think of all those people beating their chests when Saddam was (quiet rightly) shown the door. Obviously, these same people were not the ones doing the dying for reasons of foreign policy. However, they are the same people who seem to be now more than willing to discard normal Iraqis and leave them to their fate. What a complete and utter bxlls up. If there was no understanding of the region, and no intention to see the job through to a successful finish, then the US (and its allies) should not have got involved in the first place. As it is, deserting Iraq at the current time will leave little more than a black hole, a state of affairs that is conducive to chaos.

Back some years ago on the 60th anniversary of D-Day, it was very much in vogue to refer to the veterans of that war as "the Greatest Generation." Maybe they were, however, the generations that followed such people don't offer much of a comparison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some withdrawal....

Bitch because they stay, Bitch because they leave.

Ever been happy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Timorborder - "The other members of the "coalition of the willing" need to hang their heads in shame as well."

For not getting entangled too deeply in a pointless war that was launched for no good reason thanks to twisted intel and outright lies backed up by a US public and media that was simply too lazy to check their facts is a damn good reason for those nations to pat themselves on the back.

Timorborder - "However, they are the same people who seem to be now more than willing to discard normal Iraqis and leave them to their fate."

lol!

I just love this fake caring attitude from someone who appears to think that bombing the cr*p out of a country, leaving countles thousands dead, destroying vital infrastructure and leaving future generations of innocent Iraqis to deal with a cancer-ridden legacy of U.S. made and dropped DU is somehow a good idea.

Timorborder - "As it is, deserting Iraq at the current time will leave little more than a black hole, a state of affairs that is conducive to chaos."

Perhaps people like you should have made a bit of effort to consider the possible effects of the aftermath BEFORE you went in all guns blazing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iraqis need to learn about community organizing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi you have me wrong. In a previous life I was a career infantry officer who saw service in a number of places including the Gulf War. The only reason I am no longer serving is that I am TPI (totally and permanently incapacitated) as a result of a helicopter incident.

Anyway, what upsets me about the current situation in Iraq is that US (and coalition) policy is neither here nor there. Based on the trumped up lies of the Bush Administration, the US should have not gone into Iraq as it did, both under armed and totally clueless as to how to win the peace. Back in 2002 and early 2003, the US military had a mini-purge of all those officers who were smart enough to realize the Rumsfeld and his neo-con cabal had no idea of the complexities of modern warfare. The smartest kid on the block, General Shinseki, was unceremoniously shown the door. He at least understood the issues involved in terms of quickly filling the vacuum created by the collapse of the Hussein regime. Instead of looking for WMD, the US should have started winning hearts and minds from Day 1. But then again, with Rumsfeld second-guessing career officers, the whole invasion was a disaster waiting to happen.

In contemporary terms, I am also less than happy with the idea of the US (and its allies) exiting a country that obviously lacks a viable government. Those "running" the country at the moment all have one thing in common. They quickly abandoned the population to its fate when Saddam was in power. To put it in another way, the current administration in Iraq have little or not street credibility among rank and file Iraqis. Basic services are still not back to what they were under Saddam, and you still have bombings occurring with regularity. Indeed, it all seems so Vietnam circa 1972. The US wanting to get out of the country, but the locals are unable to successfully take over. So what is the US to do? The US was quick to take the moral high ground in justifying its removal of the Hussein regime. Where is that morality now? Is it the moral thing to do to write the whole Iraq adventure off as some aberration just because US kids are coming home in body bags? If the US is so worried about such things, then it should have not got involved in the first place? And what were the reasons for invading Iraq again? Democracy in the Middle East (an idea alien to the region), WMD, the war on terrorism (Saddam was never a strong supporter of Muslim terrorists, he only got religion when his back was against the wall), what about lower oil prices (where are you Rupert Murdoch?)

And meanwhile the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates (you know OBL and his Taliban butt boys). Anyway, somebody clearly screwed up over Iraq, but just cutting and running is not the solution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It's thanks to the incredibly stupid decision of the george bush... that this war was even started"

I'd comment on that comment, but then my comment would be deleted for being off topic even as this one remains, so I'll just say this:

This withdrawal is going ahead as envisioned by... get ready... George W.Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have indebted the American (and Iraqi) people sufficiently (Fed Reserve is happy) = time to leave.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great posts by timorborder, but one thing he said, "if there was no understanding of the region", is not quite right. Both George H.W. Bush's and (gulp!) Dick Cheney's statements in the 90's showed that they understood the region very well, and accurately predicted what would happen if Iraq were invaded. So there was lots of understanding, but it was just ignored.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GJDailleult - "Both George H.W. Bush's and (gulp!) Dick Cheney's statements in the 90's showed that they understood the region very well, and accurately predicted what would happen if Iraq were invaded."

You're right. Both these individuals said one thing then went ahead and did the complete opposite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Vision 31st August also in year 2010, Iraqis fully in leadership.with US army out.

Vision 31st August 2015, Iraq's GDP increases to 400 billion USD or more, from present 100 billion USD.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But where are they going next? Iraq has been liberated just as Vietnam was. Iran? Syria? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BobbieWickham - Iraq has been liberated just as Vietnam was.

You mean "devastated" ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

all in all the most capable buffer to Iran and Islamist extremism was smashed at host cost of both life and money to prove some kind of point.Now we have a stronger and more bullish Iran,and Iraq infested with extremists that use Iraq as a base to attack the Turks and whoever else...and still no WMDs.Great performance all round really.If all that time,money and effort had been spent in Afghanistan JUST maybe things there may have changed for the better..instead two countries have gone to the dogs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FromEurope. Sarcasm? I know I shouldn't. Osakadaz. Where's the money? It was Henry Ford all those years ago. Who is it now? Everything you said is true but it's going to happen again and again and again and again. "However, the independent Government Accountability Office reported to Congress earlier this year that the withdrawal would be a “massive and expensive effort” that would likely increase war costs by billions." Brainwashing doesn't come into it. How do you know a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's a shame we won't get to see the nuclear arms race between Saddam and Iran. Would have been interesting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now we can move into Afghanistan and start building that oil pipeline (Al Gore and the NWO demand it). -That is phase 2.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

See, that's the typical government red tape, over-budgeting, over-planning, over-spending, over-thinking and over-doing. You have a bunch of military and other crap sitting around in Iraq. You need to get it out. Pay the Iraquis that we have impovrished in the first place to help move the stuff - sort of like the college kids you can hire to help you move here at a fraction of the cost of traditional movers. Move it to ports; put it on cargo ships and bring it home. That shouldn't cost billions. In a time when our government is asking us to do so much more with so much less, and we're all feeling a huge economic crunch, let's save a buck here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GJDailleult,

beezlebub could also have added that each mercenary, sorry "contractor", is paid a salary far higher than that of US military personnel, and that they are usually ex-US military, meaning the US taxpayer has paid for their training. Great value for the money!!!!

Not necessarily. When you factor in the PTSD and MTBI factor, throw out the behavioral health safety net offered to service members and eliminate effective oversight, you have the makings of a pretty explosive situation, both in Iraq and when that mercenary returns back to the U.S.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

madverts: I'm unsure how you can credibly argue about that there would have been a nuclear arms race twixt Iran and Iraq..

How could there not be a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq? The fact is that Saddam prevented verification of his WMD program for the simple fact that he wanted Iran to believe he still had them. He was paranoid about Iran. He was so paranoid about Iran that he walked the line with the UN by refusing verification just to make Iran think he still had them. He went so far to keep Iran at bay that you're saying he would have chosen against building nukes after successfully getting by UN inspections? It's completely illogical.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The arguement is we (bush/cheney and republicans) wanted their oil reserves and we took them, er... for a while.

The arguement is we (bush/cheney and republicans) took Iraq and it's ours till we decide to leave. (Shucks, that's over with also.)

They don't care whether we (bush/cheney and republicans) had any reason to go into Iraq, bush said it was right and that's all that matters.

Now 6+ years later, over 4,000 American troops killed, over 50,000 wounded, over 600,000 Iraqis dead and millions of Iraqi wounded and refugees and at a cost of over a $TRILLION when over, we got nothing for our money, effort and resourses.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is Halliburton and dick cheney made $BILLIONS and it's okay.

Bring the troops home. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good move. The sooner US gets out of Iraq, the better. Iraq was a big waste of time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Personally,I felt a little foolish when I heard last month that BP and China eventually got the big oil contracts in Iraq.The same BP that pressured the British gov into releasing the Lockerbie bomber in exchange for rights to drill off of Libya's coast line .I too had a lot invested in the idea that the so called liberation of Iraq was all about bush and cheney stealing their oil. And now, I'm not so sure about the Halliburton claims.The stock reached its peak AFTER the surge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A surge in troops is also going to create in support services, which is what halliburton (poorly) supplied.

The draw down, combined with them serving the troops contaminated water and getting several electrocuted in the shower due to their shoddy workmanship has lead to halliburton being fined hundreds of millions of dollars, which of course will take a toll on their stock.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Obama's Cairo speech,his Ramadan greeting to the Muslim world, his refusal to be like bush and acknowledge and celebrate our national Prayer Day in America, and his recent Iftar Ramadan Dinner at the White House for Muslim Americans is the kind of display of European-style soft power that will pay huge dividends for him and his party.I wouldn't be surprised if the bombing in Iraq ceases altogether.Come to think of it, halliburton must be really hatin on him right now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gosh, why do you think Pres. Obama would care if halliburton is "hatin" on him. Their company is responsible for the wiring that got 18 Soldiers killed. They were fined for serving out troops in Iraq contaminated water. Isn't killing American Soldiers and poisoning American Soldiers an act of war? Killing U.S. Soldiers, in Iraq, has to AT LEAST be terrorism, right?

Why is it that you want Pres. Obama to pander to the wants of terrorists and waging war on the United State?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At this time Haliburton must be crying, all the profit lost and the Democrats are to blame!

Where is Cheney when you need him?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

timorborder " Basic services are still not back to what they were under Saddam"

Actually they are in a lot of ways, production is higher now then what it was under saddam, for example Iraq today produces nearly twice as much electricity then during the time under saddam, the problem of course is that demand skyrocketed, electronics that were banned were no longer banned, wages/salaries increased making things that were not affordable now affordable. A good example would be cellphones, look at the number of cellphones in iraq before the war and then after the war.

There is more clean water then under saddam, but it is being distributed more evenly same with the electricity. It's obviously still not enough but production levels of these services are way up just that demand has skyrocketed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites