I thought we were still going to leave a significant military force there as "administration", or something? I can't remember the details.
We were, but the new Iraqi Constitution requires parliament to approve immunity for foreign military personnel. And that wasn't going to happen. So everyone (except 100-200 stationed in the Embassy) are coming home by the end of the year.
Soldiers, basically none. Just the embassy guards.
Contractors are a completely different story. Yes, we will still have several thousand contractors assisting in training the Iraqi forces. But the difference between contractors and soldiers is not mere semantics; they differ in equipment, mission, posture, and (likely) in their legal status while operating in Iraq.
So, to answer your question, the answer is "pretty much none." The war is over, and our troops are outta there.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
This has been a banner year for US forces and NATO.
Aren't we also reducing the military personnel in afganistan by 50%? That's great news as well. Hopefully we'll end both of our wars by 2012 and people from my graduating class can stop being "heroes" for the GOP to shit all over.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
In all seriousness, would an annexation of Mexico be that bad of an idea?
It'd be really bad for the US, great for Mexico. It would be like the German reunification, just bigger in every way.
so it'd be great for suffering poor people, bad for relatively rich people?
It depends on what we do once we annex them... if we turn it into a fully-fledged part of the US, it would be great for them (except the whole invasion + forcible annex thing), but if we kept them as territories, a place for cheap labor and resources to be extracted, it wouldn't be so hot.
All joking aside, am I the only person who reads news like this and then just sits there, feeling massively ignorant? My first inclination was "Yay less Americans fighting/ my cousin comes home!" The second on was "But is Iraq actually going to be ok? And what does that even entail?", "How do I not have a better informed opinion on this?"
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
As long as it doesn't cause another 9/11, Iraq can explode for all I care.
As long as it doesn't cause another 9/11, Iraq can explode for all I care.
(Yes, I'm being hyperbolic.)
I think all these seal-in-the-night strikes were a way of saying "we can still come and shoot you if you cross us" to make pulling out less risky. The threat of a sniper's bullet between the eyes while you sleep is not good for terrorist recruiting.
Aren't we also reducing the military personnel in afganistan by 50%? That's great news as well. Hopefully we'll end both of our wars by 2012 and people from my graduating class can stop being "heroes" for the GOP to shit all over.
Unless something changes, we're in Afghanistan until 2014.
Not to mention that SOFA has been on the books since 2008. The timing of this confirmation of the withdrawl date, in combination with the stated goal of removing all troops, strikes me as being rather convenient.
Not to mention that SOFA has been on the books since 2008. The timing of this confirmation of the withdrawl date, in combination with the stated goal of removing all troops, strikes me as being rather convenient.
In any case, it's a positive development.
Non binding in the sense that we could have told the Iraqis that we changed our mind without them being able to respond, but still, we did have this agreement with them for many years. As for Gates's predictions from 2008, sure, that was what he might have envisioned, but that was always subject to negotiation with the Iraqi government, and since they seem to have decided that they didn't want foreign troops running around outside their control, it seems that there won't be much of a transitional force.
besides, Bush probably figured that president Palin would get the credit from the timing when he initially set up this timetable.
Not to mention that SOFA has been on the books since 2008. The timing of this confirmation of the withdrawl date, in combination with the stated goal of removing all troops, strikes me as being rather convenient.
In any case, it's a positive development.
Non binding in the sense that we could have told the Iraqis that we changed our mind without them being able to respond, but still, we did have this agreement with them for many years. As for Gates's predictions from 2008, sure, that was what he might have envisioned, but that was always subject to negotiation with the Iraqi government, and since they seem to have decided that they didn't want foreign troops running around outside their control, it seems that there won't be much of a transitional force.
besides, Bush probably figured that president Palin would get the credit from the timing when he initially set up this timetable.
I'm not pretending that the timeline is apolitical, there's a reason tax hikes never go into effect in November, I'm just saying that this isn't some shocking development. After deciding to scrap his campaign proposal that everybody get out by 2009 (in favour of shooting Osama bin Laden in the face, twice) Obama has basically stuck to the existing timeline. The existing timeline said that everybody comes home at the end of the year. This announcement says that everybody is coming home at the end of the year. This is only surprising if you basically figured that everyone was lying the entire time for the past 4 years. That isn't precisely an idiotic belief, but it is an incredibly cynical one that doesn't really make much sense considering the external factors involved.
Yeah, the main new development is the one that there isn't going to be a transitional force, because of the Iraqi government's (rather sensible, imho) decision not to grant immunity to foreign troops.
I'd say invade Pakistan (those guys are being dicks), but they also have nukes.
^The moon is getting uppity.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
I say Suriname. Nobody ever expects Suriname.
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
fuck that, its time we reassert dominance and make history and its the right time of year too
we will be the first to take and hold russia....
in the winter...
and we'll go by way of kamchatka (can't spread ourselves thin going through europe)
napolean and hitler didn't know what they were doing
also Bubba, he would miss only 54% of the time :P
All joking aside, am I the only person who reads news like this and then just sits there, feeling massively ignorant? My first inclination was "Yay less Americans fighting/ my cousin comes home!" The second on was "But is Iraq actually going to be ok? And what does that even entail?", "How do I not have a better informed opinion on this?"
The truth is there is no one who knows, not even the so called "experts". Iraq could trundle along for the next decade in a state of shambles slowly rebuilding for the next decade or it could explode into sectarian civil war. My money is on the former but frankly my guess is as good as anyone elses.
All joking aside, am I the only person who reads news like this and then just sits there, feeling massively ignorant? My first inclination was "Yay less Americans fighting/ my cousin comes home!" The second on was "But is Iraq actually going to be ok? And what does that even entail?", "How do I not have a better informed opinion on this?"
Well, Iraq very probably isn't going to "be ok". Remember how there was basically a civil war going on there a few years ago, with massive violence between Shias and Sunnis? Well, most of those problems are still around.
The violence subsided for several reasons, including the "surge" of US troops. As well, Iraq and particularly Baghdad became effectively segregated; where Shia and Sunni used to live side by side, only one remained. Massive walls were built throughout Baghdad to separate different religious neighbourhoods. Millions of people fled their homes, those who were able (usually meaning those with education and good jobs) left the country, others fled to other areas inside Iraq.
As well we had the "Sunni Awakening". Sunnis are a minority, and were in power under Saddam. Sunni groups (including wahabbi groups like al-queda in Iraq or whatever they called themselves) were responsible for a great deal of the violence, though of course the Shia were very, very far from being innocent. But the awakening happened when the US was able to negotiate with Sunni clans and get them to stop fighting and come to the negotiating table. I have a problem with this strategy, since the negotiations including giving money, training and weapons to these Sunni groups so they could fight terrorists. However these groups that were armed were the very same that were attacking US forces a year earlier. They have no fundamental loyalty to the US, and indeed a lot of reasons to hate the US and the Shia majority. It was convenient to arm these groups at the time, but this is going to come back and bite at some point. Much how the US also trained mujihadeen in Afghanistan back in the day, more people with no fundamental loyalties to the US, and we all see where that went.
And, hell, well there's plenty of other problems too. The Kurds basically have their own country... but are not actually going to get one officially. Turkey has been conducting semi-regular raids into northern Iraq to fight Kurdish rebels there. Iran has been fighting along its border as well recently. The Kurds will have to be pulled into the central government somehow, it will not just be left as an autonomous region since it has both resources and is a breeding ground for rebels (keep in mind that Kurdish territory is northern Iraq, southeastern Turkey and northwestern Iran, so the Kurds are never just an Iraqi issue).
The political situation in Iraq is pretty messy. Malaki (the prime minister) is very friendly with, if not a puppet of, Iran. I thought Iraq doesn't even have a properly functioning government right now due to internal divisions, but someone voted to not accept US troops back so I guess they have something going on. A quick wiki check shows me that along with being PM, Malaki is also Minister of National Security Affairs, Minister of the Interior, and Minister of Defense. Can't say I know why, but a normal government is not run that way.
Anyway, the biggest beneficiary to all this is Iran. Its a Shia country so has a lot in common with the majority Shia of Iraq. Iran has been making a ton of political and economic links to Iraq, as well as funding anti-US rebels. Once the US fully leaves we'll see Iraq gradually (or perhaps quickly) get even closer to Iran politically and economically. Though really, anyone who can provide basic security and basic services to the population will be loved by all. Bombings and attacks are a daily feature of life in Iraq, though you don't hear it too much on the news, why, 4 people were blown up in Baghdad just today. Baghdad, unless this changed in the past couple months, is *still* without many basic services that were destroyed in the war. It still has electricity for only a few hours a day, and has problems with water, sewage, waste removal and so on. Iraq is really a country being held together by shoe strings at the moment, and any break will see more political upheaval.
Wow that was way longer than I planned.
tl;dr: Iraq is a mess, and still has a lot of changing to do, almost certainly closer to iran, maybe violently
All I ask is that we invade somewhere with sandy beaches, fruity drinks, and hot chicks in bikinis next.
Maybe Puerto Rico?
Seriously, though, no more deserts. Been there, done that.
This is the eternal dilemma of American foreign policy, of course...you always want to avoid a country with women wearing bikinis, but as soon as you do, poof, no more women in bikinis.
Bay of Pigs in Cuba, North Vietnam, etc. And it takes a few years for the bikinis to come back afterwards.
It's the immortal "This is why we can't have nice things" problem.
All I ask is that we invade somewhere with sandy beaches, fruity drinks, and hot chicks in bikinis next.
Maybe Puerto Rico?
Seriously, though, no more deserts. Been there, done that.
This is the eternal dilemma of American foreign policy, of course...you always want to avoid a country with women wearing bikinis, but as soon as you do, poof, no more women in bikinis.
Bay of Pigs in Cuba, North Vietnam, etc. And it takes a few years for the bikinis to come back afterwards.
It's the immortal "This is why we can't have nice things" problem.
All I ask is that we invade somewhere with sandy beaches, fruity drinks, and hot chicks in bikinis next.
Maybe Puerto Rico?
Seriously, though, no more deserts. Been there, done that.
This is the eternal dilemma of American foreign policy, of course...you always want to avoid a country with women wearing bikinis, but as soon as you do, poof, no more women in bikinis.
Bay of Pigs in Cuba, North Vietnam, etc. And it takes a few years for the bikinis to come back afterwards.
It's the immortal "This is why we can't have nice things" problem.
Its lack of pussy that fucks countries up.
There aren't many countries where the reverse is the case--the one that comes to mind is the Soviet Union, after 1945, where there were way more young women then young men.
On the other hand, now I understand why Patton really wanted to invade.
All I ask is that we invade somewhere with sandy beaches, fruity drinks, and hot chicks in bikinis next.
Maybe Puerto Rico?
Seriously, though, no more deserts. Been there, done that.
This is the eternal dilemma of American foreign policy, of course...you always want to avoid a country with women wearing bikinis, but as soon as you do, poof, no more women in bikinis.
Bay of Pigs in Cuba, North Vietnam, etc. And it takes a few years for the bikinis to come back afterwards.
It's the immortal "This is why we can't have nice things" problem.
Its lack of pussy that fucks countries up.
There aren't many countries where the reverse is the case--the one that comes to mind is the Soviet Union, after 1945, where there were way more young women then young men.
On the other hand, now I understand why Patton really wanted to invade.
I think like a third of 19-22 year olds in France died in WWI so I imagine the survivors had some stuff to drown out the nightmares.
Posts
I vote France. I could really go for a hamburger and some Freedom Fries right now.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
We were, but the new Iraqi Constitution requires parliament to approve immunity for foreign military personnel. And that wasn't going to happen. So everyone (except 100-200 stationed in the Embassy) are coming home by the end of the year.
Kobe getting 100 shots off is no problem. Of course, he'll miss 60% of them.
TPM says we still have a good 9,500 contracts still in Iraq after January 2012
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/soldiers_may_be_leaving_iraq_but_contractors_are_just_scaling_back.php
Edit: Looks like it might be between 3-5k left for iraqi training
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/world/middleeast/president-obama-announces-end-of-war-in-iraq.html
Soldiers, basically none. Just the embassy guards.
Contractors are a completely different story. Yes, we will still have several thousand contractors assisting in training the Iraqi forces. But the difference between contractors and soldiers is not mere semantics; they differ in equipment, mission, posture, and (likely) in their legal status while operating in Iraq.
So, to answer your question, the answer is "pretty much none." The war is over, and our troops are outta there.
pleasepaypreacher.net
We'll see how this affects my chances.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
It depends on what we do once we annex them... if we turn it into a fully-fledged part of the US, it would be great for them (except the whole invasion + forcible annex thing), but if we kept them as territories, a place for cheap labor and resources to be extracted, it wouldn't be so hot.
Becoming part of America? Hah
The rich would just lower the standard of living for the poor enough so that the new citizens didn't qualify for any benefits
(Yes, I'm being hyperbolic.)
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I think all these seal-in-the-night strikes were a way of saying "we can still come and shoot you if you cross us" to make pulling out less risky. The threat of a sniper's bullet between the eyes while you sleep is not good for terrorist recruiting.
But too bad the economy is ISSUE NUMBER ONE.
Yeah, it was kind of nice of President Bush to do that.
Unless something changes, we're in Afghanistan until 2014.
Cuba?
lolwut
SOFA was a non-binding agreement, and Gates had stated that perhaps thousands of troops should remain in Iraq after the 2011 withdrawl.
Not to mention that SOFA has been on the books since 2008. The timing of this confirmation of the withdrawl date, in combination with the stated goal of removing all troops, strikes me as being rather convenient.
In any case, it's a positive development.
Non binding in the sense that we could have told the Iraqis that we changed our mind without them being able to respond, but still, we did have this agreement with them for many years. As for Gates's predictions from 2008, sure, that was what he might have envisioned, but that was always subject to negotiation with the Iraqi government, and since they seem to have decided that they didn't want foreign troops running around outside their control, it seems that there won't be much of a transitional force.
besides, Bush probably figured that president Palin would get the credit from the timing when he initially set up this timetable.
I'm not pretending that the timeline is apolitical, there's a reason tax hikes never go into effect in November, I'm just saying that this isn't some shocking development. After deciding to scrap his campaign proposal that everybody get out by 2009 (in favour of shooting Osama bin Laden in the face, twice) Obama has basically stuck to the existing timeline. The existing timeline said that everybody comes home at the end of the year. This announcement says that everybody is coming home at the end of the year. This is only surprising if you basically figured that everyone was lying the entire time for the past 4 years. That isn't precisely an idiotic belief, but it is an incredibly cynical one that doesn't really make much sense considering the external factors involved.
It's time to invade the moon.
^The moon is getting uppity.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
If everyone's dead, then they can't be violent, it's obvious really.
fuck that, its time we reassert dominance and make history and its the right time of year too
we will be the first to take and hold russia....
in the winter...
and we'll go by way of kamchatka (can't spread ourselves thin going through europe)
napolean and hitler didn't know what they were doing
also Bubba, he would miss only 54% of the time :P
The truth is there is no one who knows, not even the so called "experts". Iraq could trundle along for the next decade in a state of shambles slowly rebuilding for the next decade or it could explode into sectarian civil war. My money is on the former but frankly my guess is as good as anyone elses.
Well, Iraq very probably isn't going to "be ok". Remember how there was basically a civil war going on there a few years ago, with massive violence between Shias and Sunnis? Well, most of those problems are still around.
The violence subsided for several reasons, including the "surge" of US troops. As well, Iraq and particularly Baghdad became effectively segregated; where Shia and Sunni used to live side by side, only one remained. Massive walls were built throughout Baghdad to separate different religious neighbourhoods. Millions of people fled their homes, those who were able (usually meaning those with education and good jobs) left the country, others fled to other areas inside Iraq.
As well we had the "Sunni Awakening". Sunnis are a minority, and were in power under Saddam. Sunni groups (including wahabbi groups like al-queda in Iraq or whatever they called themselves) were responsible for a great deal of the violence, though of course the Shia were very, very far from being innocent. But the awakening happened when the US was able to negotiate with Sunni clans and get them to stop fighting and come to the negotiating table. I have a problem with this strategy, since the negotiations including giving money, training and weapons to these Sunni groups so they could fight terrorists. However these groups that were armed were the very same that were attacking US forces a year earlier. They have no fundamental loyalty to the US, and indeed a lot of reasons to hate the US and the Shia majority. It was convenient to arm these groups at the time, but this is going to come back and bite at some point. Much how the US also trained mujihadeen in Afghanistan back in the day, more people with no fundamental loyalties to the US, and we all see where that went.
And, hell, well there's plenty of other problems too. The Kurds basically have their own country... but are not actually going to get one officially. Turkey has been conducting semi-regular raids into northern Iraq to fight Kurdish rebels there. Iran has been fighting along its border as well recently. The Kurds will have to be pulled into the central government somehow, it will not just be left as an autonomous region since it has both resources and is a breeding ground for rebels (keep in mind that Kurdish territory is northern Iraq, southeastern Turkey and northwestern Iran, so the Kurds are never just an Iraqi issue).
The political situation in Iraq is pretty messy. Malaki (the prime minister) is very friendly with, if not a puppet of, Iran. I thought Iraq doesn't even have a properly functioning government right now due to internal divisions, but someone voted to not accept US troops back so I guess they have something going on. A quick wiki check shows me that along with being PM, Malaki is also Minister of National Security Affairs, Minister of the Interior, and Minister of Defense. Can't say I know why, but a normal government is not run that way.
Anyway, the biggest beneficiary to all this is Iran. Its a Shia country so has a lot in common with the majority Shia of Iraq. Iran has been making a ton of political and economic links to Iraq, as well as funding anti-US rebels. Once the US fully leaves we'll see Iraq gradually (or perhaps quickly) get even closer to Iran politically and economically. Though really, anyone who can provide basic security and basic services to the population will be loved by all. Bombings and attacks are a daily feature of life in Iraq, though you don't hear it too much on the news, why, 4 people were blown up in Baghdad just today. Baghdad, unless this changed in the past couple months, is *still* without many basic services that were destroyed in the war. It still has electricity for only a few hours a day, and has problems with water, sewage, waste removal and so on. Iraq is really a country being held together by shoe strings at the moment, and any break will see more political upheaval.
Wow that was way longer than I planned.
tl;dr: Iraq is a mess, and still has a lot of changing to do, almost certainly closer to iran, maybe violently
edit: for more discussion on this and other topics, please see our ongoing Middle East Thread
This is the eternal dilemma of American foreign policy, of course...you always want to avoid a country with women wearing bikinis, but as soon as you do, poof, no more women in bikinis.
Bay of Pigs in Cuba, North Vietnam, etc. And it takes a few years for the bikinis to come back afterwards.
It's the immortal "This is why we can't have nice things" problem.
Its lack of pussy that fucks countries up.
There aren't many countries where the reverse is the case--the one that comes to mind is the Soviet Union, after 1945, where there were way more young women then young men.
On the other hand, now I understand why Patton really wanted to invade.
I think like a third of 19-22 year olds in France died in WWI so I imagine the survivors had some stuff to drown out the nightmares.
Le Big Mac
I would like to know more about that place. So I need more media coverage of it. And wars bring media.