Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Last Combat troops leave Iraq
Evigilant
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.newsweek.com/spectrum/2010/08/19/u-s-combat-troops-leave-iraq.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/19/diamond.iraq.withdrawal/index.html?hpt=T2
As of 2052hrs the last combat troops will have left Iraq. I have heard they are to be replaced by civilians and contractors, but I cannot find a source stating such.
It is in my personal opinion that it is a mistake to "leave" so early: we'll see a rise of violence in Iraq, as the Sunnis, who had realized late in the game to cooperate (the Sunni Awakening) with the new Government will be fearing for their lives as the empowered Shiites have been holding off on revenge all these years. I fail to see any real progress made in their government: there's no real cooperation between the Sunni's and Shiites; and the people who will be at a real loss are the Kurds in the north.
The Sunni Awakening, for those who are unaware, is a group of Sunni tribes who formed a coalition to help ease tensions and better security for the coalition in Iraq. The surge did nothing: it was this awakening that provided the relative "calm" in Iraq because the Sunni's realized they needed a voice, they needed to be able to provide input while the Americans are still here, because once we leave, they believe they're going to be squashed down.
I feel al-Maliki (the guy who came in 2nd in the vote) is going to crack down on all the Sunni Arabs for "Baathist ties". Iran is going to have a huge influence (since they are Shiite as well) and Syria is going to probably side with the Shiite Iraq because Iran is and they don't want to be hung out, left to dry. This places the Sunni Iraqis in a corner. The surge did nothing but put a lid on the container, it didn't solve the deep hatred towards one another, all it did was put US service members on every corner instituting a curfew. With us leaving, the lid is off, and we'll most likely see the violence escalate once more to what it was after the fall of Baghdad.
And then the Kurds in the north are just left hanging. They're going to get the shit end of the deal regardless of who is in power. They are fearing that they're going to get gassed and bombed again. It's a shame, they are the most pro-American group in Iraq.
I'm conflicted: I feel that we're morally obligated to stay there and ensure the government is up and running successfully, and that the security is not just "alright". After all, we came in and bomb the hell out of them, destroyed their government, and forced one down on them while security is still precariously bad. To leave now just signals we give up, we're tired and lazy. However, with Afghanistan flaring up, the economy in the shitter, everyone in the military fatigued from the deployments, how much longer could we really keep it up? We gave them the tools, do we really need to be holding their hands through the rest of it?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/19/diamond.iraq.withdrawal/index.html?hpt=T2
As of 2052hrs the last combat troops will have left Iraq. I have heard they are to be replaced by civilians and contractors, but I cannot find a source stating such.
It is in my personal opinion that it is a mistake to "leave" so early: we'll see a rise of violence in Iraq, as the Sunnis, who had realized late in the game to cooperate (the Sunni Awakening) with the new Government will be fearing for their lives as the empowered Shiites have been holding off on revenge all these years. I fail to see any real progress made in their government: there's no real cooperation between the Sunni's and Shiites; and the people who will be at a real loss are the Kurds in the north.
The Sunni Awakening, for those who are unaware, is a group of Sunni tribes who formed a coalition to help ease tensions and better security for the coalition in Iraq. The surge did nothing: it was this awakening that provided the relative "calm" in Iraq because the Sunni's realized they needed a voice, they needed to be able to provide input while the Americans are still here, because once we leave, they believe they're going to be squashed down.
I feel al-Maliki (the guy who came in 2nd in the vote) is going to crack down on all the Sunni Arabs for "Baathist ties". Iran is going to have a huge influence (since they are Shiite as well) and Syria is going to probably side with the Shiite Iraq because Iran is and they don't want to be hung out, left to dry. This places the Sunni Iraqis in a corner. The surge did nothing but put a lid on the container, it didn't solve the deep hatred towards one another, all it did was put US service members on every corner instituting a curfew. With us leaving, the lid is off, and we'll most likely see the violence escalate once more to what it was after the fall of Baghdad.
And then the Kurds in the north are just left hanging. They're going to get the shit end of the deal regardless of who is in power. They are fearing that they're going to get gassed and bombed again. It's a shame, they are the most pro-American group in Iraq.
I'm conflicted: I feel that we're morally obligated to stay there and ensure the government is up and running successfully, and that the security is not just "alright". After all, we came in and bomb the hell out of them, destroyed their government, and forced one down on them while security is still precariously bad. To leave now just signals we give up, we're tired and lazy. However, with Afghanistan flaring up, the economy in the shitter, everyone in the military fatigued from the deployments, how much longer could we really keep it up? We gave them the tools, do we really need to be holding their hands through the rest of it?
Evigilant on
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Google+ Profile Origin: 13Evigilant Steam: Evigilant
Google+ Profile Origin: 13Evigilant Steam: Evigilant
Posts
A: Left 50k people there to continue training the Iraqis
B: Left them with a police force and military that are collectively bigger than anything we've had there
We're not really leaving them hanging. And this had been in the works for a long time--this is on schedule. :?
They're still going to get some support for a long time, and we'll be hanging out over in Kuwait to help if things go south and they ask for help.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I thought that was 6k in support troops.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
There are 50k in non-combat positions that will remain until December 2011.
Obviously it was a mistake to ever go in there, but now that we have I say we've given Iraq all (and much more) than is reasonable and should jolly good GTFO of there.
Nation building is not what America is for, and I personally am sick of the government footing the bill for such a project while our own country is suffering.
First, tend your own house.
"There is not a man of us who does not at times need a helping hand to be stretched out to him, and then shame upon him who will not stretch out the helping hand to his brother."
The only is in quotes because it's a relative number. There's about 30k law enforcement officers in NYC alone, and with an area the size of Iraq, that's not really as much as it sounds like. There will be roughly as many troops left in Iraq as are currently assigned to Germany, some ~70 years after that war ended.
Secret Satans! Post | D&D Wishlist | General Wishlist
This. We never had a plan to stop historical religious violence.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Yes, but as is shown lately, the current Iraqi Security forces show a complete lack in ability to provide security. The Americans left don't provide security, they're just trainers. They can't go out and help, they can't provide any assistance, their role is purely instructor.
We've seen the Iraqi Army refuse to assist, deserted, or even aided the insurgency. They still lack a military intelligence apparatus and logistical support: transportation, medevac and medical logistics. There's also no military justice system, which would help deter against desertion, refusal, and aiding the insurgency. There's also a shortage of Iraqi's joining the military or police force, causing problems for the command to handle existing manpower.
The Iraqi Police are deeply entrenched in huge scandals and infiltration by insurgents. They're was also a point where they where just an arm of the Shia sect, becoming Shia death squads. Their police stations are the targets of constant attacks, with weapons and uniforms stolen, resulting in many of them deserting. Back in 2006, 12,000 deserted with 4000 killed. Also in 2006, our own US State Department released a human rights report accusing Iraq Police of widespread atrocities.
I honestly feel that even with 50,000 support troops left in the country, sectarian violence is just going to escalate back to what it was.
Google+ Profile Origin: 13Evigilant Steam: Evigilant
Maybe you should tell the Iraqis, as they're the ones kicking the troops out.
We lost in iraq when we invaded for no reason and removed the cruel dictator that was keeping the religious violence somewhat* in check with his horrible iron fist.
*Ya know, ignoring that whole gassing of the Kurds thing.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Yeah if our goal was to stabilize the middle east getting rid of Saddam wasn't a good idea, oddly enough.
We lost the second we decided to go in.
"There is not a man of us who does not at times need a helping hand to be stretched out to him, and then shame upon him who will not stretch out the helping hand to his brother."
true but we made it a fuck of a lot worse by:
not securing weapons caches
having no occupation plan past roses and victory parades
tearing apart the entire infrastructure of the government
banishing the entire Baathist party creating the angry Sunni minority
...and we've seen how well peace agreements have worked with Israel and Palestine.
Edit: I'm specifically comparing illogical religious violence.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
is 7 years enough time?
is there a limit on what is enough time?
Once we run out of meat for the grinder.
Well, we delayed the American Civil War for somewhere between 28 and 40 years depending what you think would have triggered it and that wasn't enough time. Was enough time for the north to industrialize so they would win, but...
Margaret Thatcher
Do we want the Sunnis or the Shia to win?
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Thousands of years of religious strife.
I'm sorry. I'll quit my job, make a lot of stupid life choices, and blame everyone else for my self imposed misery at once!
But yeah, the OP; we've been waging welfare long enough. The Iraqis are big boys and girls and need to attend to their own affairs.
Margaret Thatcher
If you don't think it is impossible, please come up with a plan and timeline of how you can get warring religious groups to make lasting peace. Then do the same for Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the middle east.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
You forgot ethnic groups who also claim as part of their homeland the eastern parts of our ally to the north.
Oh come now, that's a silly stereotype among silly stereotypes.
That doesn't really answer how it can be solved.
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Lincoln at his Inaugural Address 1861
Later he wrote the following in a letter Horace Greeley the editor of the New York Tribune
"Dear Sir: ... I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. .. . My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . .. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours. A. Lincoln."
Howard Zinn:
"When in September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, it was a military move, giving the South four months to stop rebelling, threatening to emancipate their slaves if they continued to fight, promising to leave slavery untouched in states that came over to the North"
Lincoln was trying to compromise.
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnslaem10.html
Edit: Sorry for the tangent.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Edit: Even then, the actual spark was firing on a supply ship. Who knows what would have happened if that hadn't happened.
"The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise"
Very true.
As it stands I think the country has reached a point (quite a while ago, really) where our continued combat role, for what good it does do (and it does), causes as many problems as it solves. At some point, unless we want to make it a U.S. territory, the country has to stand up and figure its shit out. I'm pretty sure we're there.
Plus, we still have a fuckton of troops there for support, training, and assistance with security duties.
A fact that most people will overlook is that there will probably be Spec Ops (SF, Delta, Seal, SAS, etc) units in Iraq for quite some time (whether it's acknowledged or not).