Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamisjockey on October 21, 2011, 08:37:08 PM

Title: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 21, 2011, 08:37:08 PM
Shocking it's not under discussion already!  So Barry keeps one campaign promise, 2 years late?
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on October 21, 2011, 09:32:05 PM
I'm surprised it took him as long as it did to lift DADT. Maybe he's doing it now so it will remain fresh in voters' memories?

I don't object to leaving Iraq. I figure we've done all we can for that place.

Related story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases

What exactly happens to all the million-dollar bases over there? Do we pack up our razor wire and sandbags, or leave it to Iraqis, AC and all? I have no idea what procedure is with these things.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 21, 2011, 09:34:21 PM
Weren't there some kind of international agreements, signed years ago, as to the scale and dates of the U.S. withdrawal?
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on October 21, 2011, 09:40:09 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/22/iraq.barackobama?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Quote
The Iraqi government boosted Barack Obama's election chances yesterday by publicly backing his timetable for withdrawal of all US combat troops by 2010
From 2008.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: longeyes on October 21, 2011, 09:48:38 PM
It will certainly boost his chances of being the next President of Iran.

***

The whole thing was a miscarriage, sadly; we should have been out years ago.  Good men and women died--for what?
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: RaspberrySurprise on October 21, 2011, 10:15:37 PM

What exactly happens to all the million-dollar bases over there? Do we pack up our razor wire and sandbags, or leave it to Iraqis, AC and all? I have no idea what procedure is with these things.

Sensitive things are packed out or destroyed in place. As to the buildings and such probably gonna end up belonging to the Iraqis
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: AJ Dual on October 21, 2011, 11:52:26 PM
What exactly happens to all the million-dollar bases over there? Do we pack up our razor wire and sandbags, or leave it to Iraqis, AC and all? I have no idea what procedure is with these things.

The REALLY fancy bases? Oh, we keep occupying those.  :angel:

The "withdrawl" in my mind is more of a change over from the occupation to...

What's the term for the military stationed in once occupied nations who are now allied nations? Like Germany and Japan, or our presence in Saudi Arabia, Quatar etc?

...that. The occupation is changing over to whatever it is we call that.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: kgbsquirrel on October 22, 2011, 01:40:46 AM
The REALLY fancy bases? Oh, we keep occupying those.  :angel:

The "withdrawl" in my mind is more of a change over from the occupation to...

What's the term for the military stationed in once occupied nations who are now allied nations? Like Germany and Japan, or our presence in Saudi Arabia, Quatar etc?

...that. The occupation is changing over to whatever it is we call that.

Except the Iraqis said no to leaving troops stationed there.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: De Selby on October 22, 2011, 01:41:11 AM
Obama tried hard to keep us there but the iraqis won't cooperate.

The Iranians must be loving bush and obama for the great strategic win they've been handed.  They now have an ally next door to help them against their enemies in the gulf.

Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Monkeyleg on October 22, 2011, 02:34:57 AM
Quote
The Iranians must be loving bush and obama for the great strategic win they've been handed.  They now have an ally next door to help them against their enemies in the gulf.

Iraq and Iran are allies? I must have missed the NYT that day. What edition was it?
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: De Selby on October 22, 2011, 04:16:17 AM
Iraq and Iran are allies? I must have missed the NYT that day. What edition was it?

It's older news than that:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601165.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601165.html)
Quote
"This is a new chapter in relations with Iraq. In the future, we will witness a sharp change and promotion in relations," said Iran's first vice president, Mohammad Reza Aref, who met with Jafari after his arrival Saturday, the Associated Press reported. Jafari, in turn, said a bond with Iran was an "inseparable part of Iraq's foreign relations."

And of course, maybe not the NYT, but the WSJ is noticing it recently:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203752604576645512455449144.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203752604576645512455449144.html)
Quote
Mr. Maliki and other top Iraqi officials lived in Tehran during much of Hussein's tenure and developed close relations with Iranian officials. Iran, which shares the *expletive deleted*it faith with the majority of Iraqis, has also used religious, commercial and aid institutions to project Iran's influence inside Iraq.

Of course it makes sense when you think about the fact that Iranian-trained, Revolutionary Guards backed militias and political parties control Iraq.  You can read about the history of Iraq's leadership living in Syria and Iran here in the profile of Iraq's leaderhttp://www.islamicdawaparty.com/?module=home&fname=leaderdesc.php&id=78 (http://www.islamicdawaparty.com/?module=home&fname=leaderdesc.php&id=78).

Wikileaks made some news about this too.  Apparently the US military also notices how thoroughly infiltrated by Iranians the Iraqi government is, and wrote memos about it:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703994904575646911886138950.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703994904575646911886138950.html)
Quote
The Iranian commander also "enjoys longstanding close ties" with several top Iraqi officials such as President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, according to a dispatch from Baghdad.

So yeah, Iraq and Iran now have close relationships at the highest levels of government.

I'm consistently stunned that asserting this is controversial, given that one of the ruling coalition parties in Iraq was until recently called the "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq".  You'd think naming yourself after the Iranian system and then winning elections would be a tip as to what Iraqis think of Iran...

Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 22, 2011, 10:02:15 AM
The REALLY fancy bases? Oh, we keep occupying those.  :angel:

The "withdrawl" in my mind is more of a change over from the occupation to...

What's the term for the military stationed in once occupied nations who are now allied nations? Like Germany and Japan, or our presence in Saudi Arabia, Quatar etc?

...that. The occupation is changing over to whatever it is we call that.

Surprisingly, the withdrawal was explained that only embassy troops, about 150, would be in Iraq.
So, no, it is a full withdrawal.

Iraq has wanted us out for some time
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/28/iraq-wants-the-us-out-pri_n_801918.html

I say its about time. 
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Tallpine on October 22, 2011, 10:56:26 AM
Long past time ...  =(
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 22, 2011, 10:59:35 AM
Wouldn't this also save billions of dollars per year on deployment-related expenditures?
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 22, 2011, 11:14:28 AM
Wouldn't this also save billions of dollars per year on deployment-related expenditures?

Affirmative. Certainly to be redirected into loans to unsustainable energy companies.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: longeyes on October 22, 2011, 11:21:44 AM
If the goal was to neutralize an existential threat to the U.S., the mission was a failure, given Iran's current influence over Iraq.  There is no reason to perpetuate the folly, but that doesn't mean we should be cheering the misguided strategy that governed that theater of war for so long.  Perhaps we should openly acknowledge we cannot constructively influence the course of Middle Eastern events with our current brain trusts in control.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Ron on October 22, 2011, 11:35:09 AM
The upside to Iraq in its current state of affairs is that the Iraqi people can now be held responsible for the actions of their state. No more blaming Saddam for what Iraq the state does.

Same goes for all "Arab spring" movements that have popular elections that put radicals in charge.

Democracy = The people ultimately are held responsible for their leaders actions.

Elections have shown the world what the Palestinians are really all about, they may not acknowledge it, but the truth is now obvious.

More elections and more democratically elected leaders make foreign policy easier to formulate.



Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: longeyes on October 22, 2011, 11:38:56 AM
Who says people who live under dictatorships are not responsible for their polity?  Dictatorships do not happen by accident; they happen because of prevailing customs and values, a matrix of moral and social decisions over time that favor autocratic behavior.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Ron on October 22, 2011, 11:52:58 AM
The whole Iraq enterprise was a limited war with the express purpose of not engaging the populace (with violence).

We went to war with the regime of Iraq, not the people of Iraq. Hence the outcry over civilian causalities.

The left, the media and most of the world prefer to look at those under tyranny as victims of their govmt not co-conspirators with their govmt.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 22, 2011, 11:58:49 AM
What equipment that is worth sending home is being sent home.  What isn't is being left to the Iraqis at either a reduced cost or even free in some instances.

Don't sign up to become a contractor over there anytime soon.  I can see a civil war by mid-Feb.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: longeyes on October 22, 2011, 12:43:15 PM
The whole Iraq enterprise was a limited war with the express purpose of not engaging the populace (with violence).

We went to war with the regime of Iraq, not the people of Iraq. Hence the outcry over civilian causalities.

The left, the media and most of the world prefer to look at those under tyranny as victims of their govmt not co-conspirators with their govmt.

Well, these are useful fictions.  Where do the tyrants and thugs of a culture come from?  From the good citizens of that nation.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Ron on October 22, 2011, 12:52:10 PM
Well, these are useful fictions.  Where do the tyrants and thugs of a culture come from?  From the good citizens of that nation.

Well, I don't disagree with you, yet with a popular elected government in place the "useful fiction" cannot be employed to shield the populace from responsibility for the actions of their state.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Monkeyleg on October 22, 2011, 01:41:18 PM
De Selby, I was referring to a formal alliance between the two. For the purposes of discussion, though, you're right.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Gowen on October 22, 2011, 11:11:17 PM
First I think that this is mostly a reelection stunt and secondly, that with the planed cuts in the military we will not be able to keep troops in Iraq.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Waitone on October 22, 2011, 11:45:53 PM
I don't believe for a Noo Yak minute we are leaving.  Especially since the real reason for our war was to place the US squarely in the middle of the most unstable region on the planet.  The whole purpose was to allow projection of US military power inland.  Camo military may leave but "contractors" will remain.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 23, 2011, 09:44:18 AM
Trust me when I say this.  We are leaving.  Yes there will be State Department contractors there doing the training and other duties but they won't be military.  The only military will be involve with Embassy duty.  Too much at stake without the imunity from the Iraqi government to leave anyone else there.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 23, 2011, 10:17:06 AM
Trust me when I say this.  We are leaving.  Yes there will be State Department contractors there doing the training and other duties but they won't be military.  The only military will be involve with Embassy duty.  Too much at stake without the imunity from the Iraqi government to leave anyone else there.

This.  The Iraqis want us out. 
 They have for several years, even before the election. 
Obama is just capitalizing on this fact, that most people don't remember the Iraqis asking us to make an exit plan several years ago.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 23, 2011, 10:29:02 AM
What is interesting is that this plan was in place in 2008.  Who was President in 2008 and why does this one take all the credit? :facepalm: [barf]

Like he is taking credit for getting Gadaffi, really? :facepalm:
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: RaspberrySurprise on October 24, 2011, 11:32:22 PM
What is interesting is that this plan was in place in 2008.  Who was President in 2008 and why does this one take all the credit? :facepalm: [barf]

Like he is taking credit for getting Gadaffi, really? :facepalm:

Because the average American has a ten second memory for most things.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: RoadKingLarry on October 25, 2011, 06:50:44 AM
Because the average American has a ten second memory for most things.

So, who do you like in the series?
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Dannyboy on October 25, 2011, 11:25:43 AM
What exactly happens to all the million-dollar bases over there? Do we pack up our razor wire and sandbags, or leave it to Iraqis, AC and all? I have no idea what procedure is with these things.

Most of the vehicles/important/expensive things are already gone or are on their way back.  We are leaving millions of dollars worth of other stuff, though.  Some being left to DoS people some to the Iraqis, and I think even some stuff to contractors.  Don't quote me on that last part though, I read that article about a month back.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 25, 2011, 03:24:07 PM
What was left would have cost more to ship back than what it is worth.  What was left to the Iraqis was "sold" to them.  State Dept and contractors staying behind to train also got some of the gear.  But a lot of stuff is still on its way out and it is a non-stop parade.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: longeyes on October 25, 2011, 04:22:21 PM
I don't believe for a Noo Yak minute we are leaving.  Especially since the real reason for our war was to place the US squarely in the middle of the most unstable region on the planet.  The whole purpose was to allow projection of US military power inland.  Camo military may leave but "contractors" will remain.

That may have been the original (Fort Baghad et al.) plan, but it doesn't appear to be the plan of the current regime. 
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: RevDisk on October 25, 2011, 10:33:53 PM
Iraq and Iran are allies? I must have missed the NYT that day. What edition was it?

Partially correct, actually.

The Iraqi Shiites and Iranians are allies.  The Iraqi Sunni, who treated Iraqi Shiites very badly for a long time, are not allies with Iran.  The Kurds will cut a deal to any side for an independent in all but name Kurdistan.  Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if the Iranians cut a deal to either formally recognize Kurdistan or maybe even cede some or all of Iranian Kurdistan in exchange for Kurdish support or neutrality in an Iranian invasion/liberation of *expletive deleted*it occupied Iraq.

It's basically already happening and has been for a while. 
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: longeyes on October 25, 2011, 10:58:15 PM
For all the high-priced State Dept. and CIA talent we allegedly have, we seem to lack people who are capable of grasping tribalism in action.  Seems remarkably odd to me; seems suspect.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: RevDisk on October 25, 2011, 11:10:03 PM
For all the high-priced State Dept. and CIA talent we allegedly have, we seem to lack people who are capable of grasping tribalism in action.  Seems remarkably odd to me; seems suspect.

a) The people that make policy don't tend to like dealing with scruffy locals.
b) The people that can deal with the scruffy locals are hated by the desk weenies and ignored.
c) The desk weenies believe they know better, because they are in a lofty position and will override the field folks. 

Happens all the time. 
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: LadySmith on October 25, 2011, 11:59:18 PM
Because the average American has a ten second memory for most things.

I'm sorry to say that this is me.
When it was about bringing Osama to justice, I was all  =D.
But when we made a detour for Saddam, I was like  =|.
And after that I was  ???.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: longeyes on October 26, 2011, 12:27:05 AM
a) The people that make policy don't tend to like dealing with scruffy locals.
b) The people that can deal with the scruffy locals are hated by the desk weenies and ignored.
c) The desk weenies believe they know better, because they are in a lofty position and will override the field folks. 

Happens all the time. 

Well, these desk weenies--and I assume you mean to include Obama and Hillary et al.--are going to get us killed...
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: roo_ster on October 26, 2011, 11:01:14 AM
Well, these desk weenies--and I assume you mean to include Obama and Hillary et al.--are going to get us killed...

But not until they are out of office and sitting pretty in their sinecure at Goldman-Sachs.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: longeyes on October 26, 2011, 12:10:45 PM
+1
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: longeyes on October 26, 2011, 05:53:53 PM
Listen, the war is in good hands...well, not good exactly, let's say sensitive...

Here's what's going on in Afghanistan thanks to our sensitive regime.

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1933/US-Marines-No-Spitting-Toward-Mecca.aspx

"US Marines: No Spitting Toward Mecca
OCT
25
Written by: Diana West
Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:47 AM  


Gen. David Petraeus, Col. David Furness, and Shafiq Mubarak (far right). Mubarak served as Furness's "right hand" during a recent deployment. "I can't do anything without him," Furness said.

And who is Shafiq Mubarak? All I can find out is that he is a Pro Sol contractor (?) hired by the Marine Corps Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning to help implement "the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, the winning of hearts and minds." At least that's how Col. Furness puts it. According to the North County Times, Mubarak didn't come to the US until 2008 -- from where the story doesn't say -- but has been working with US troops in A-stan "for much of the past decade."

How is that? Why is that? Dunno. What the story does report is that Mubarak teaches the do's and don't's of sharia -- kind of, Islam for Leathernecks.

Mubarak teaches US Marines:

Don't spit toward Mecca.

Don't urinate toward Mecaa.

Don't sleep with your boots toward Mecca.

In other words, Mubarak teaches US Marines to become intensely sensitized to the whereabouts of Mecca, and to be guided by that magnetic North for Muslims as a matter of the most personal habits and hygiene -- in accordance with sharia (Islamic law). This goes well, of course, with ISAF's guidance to all troops to revere the Koran and its teachings.

What next, prayer rugs?

Mubarak told the North County Times:

"We can't win just by fighting," said Mubarak, who came to the U.S. less than three years ago after working with American forces in Afghanistan for much of the past decade. "Sitting with tribal elders, learning their problems and helping them is crucial."

Crucial to what? Solving the problems of one set of tribal elders. Such problems, of course, are likely to differ  from those of the next set of tribal elders, particularly when there is a blood feud, a la al-Hatfields and al-McCoys. Talk about tar babies. To coin a phrase: You Don't Win Hearts and Minds by Losing Your Own.

Meanwhile:

Mubarak and Tremore spent hours walking troops through the nuances of meetings, or "shuras" with key local leaders. Both stressed the importance of those meetings. ...

Mubarak taught the troops the proper way to sit during a shura. He told them they should plan on at least 30 minutes for an initial meeting, and that they should always finish their tea and eat any food presented.

And that includes all the intestinal parasites.

"If you don't, that means to them that you don't trust them, or think what they are giving you is poison or is unclean," he said.

Mubarak also said the Marines should never spit or urinate to the west, the direction of Mecca that Muslims in Afghanistan face when they pray.

In addition, when sharing a base with Afghan army troops, Marines shouldn't sleep with their feet pointed west, because that also is considered offensive, he said.

Afghan compounds of tribal elders are always neutral ground, Mubarak said. There is no need to wear protective vests, because the custom is that any person inside the compound will have the full protection of the Afghans who live there.

Mubarek said that when Marine Col. David Furness led Camp Pendleton's Regimental Combat Team 1 during a recent deployment,  Furness was able to win over 200 tribal families through shuras. What began as a violent deployment ended with little shooting, Mubarak said.

At what cost? That is, in exchange for what baksheesh, what edge over the next tribe, what amounts of money or local public works projects? We don't know. How permanent this little piece of shura-peace is, we don't know, either. But it all impressed Col. Furness, who gave a service award to Mubarak in June 2011 on behalf of the Regimental Combat Team - 1st Marines (RCT-1) CULAD. In the presence of Gen. Petraeus, Col. Furness said:

"General, this is my cultural advisor, Mr. Shafiq Mubarak. Mr. Shafiq is my right hand and I can't do anything without him. Mr. Shafiq directly assists in direct engagements with Afghan leaders and political decision makers. He has been instrumental in the pursuit of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, the winning of hearts and minds.

Or, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 27, 2011, 10:25:43 AM
That is the first I have heard about don't do all those things towards Mecca.  Hell maybe I need to go out of my way to make sure that I do that now.  Lets see, Mecca is which way? >:D
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: brimic on October 27, 2011, 02:06:03 PM
Quote
Mubarak teaches US Marines:

Don't spit toward Mecca.

Don't urinate toward Mecaa.

Don't sleep with your boots toward Mecca.


I'll have to pass this info along to my cousin who is an architect :laugh:
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: makattak on October 27, 2011, 02:18:45 PM
That is the first I have heard about don't do all those things towards Mecca.  Hell maybe I need to go out of my way to make sure that I do that now.  Lets see, Mecca is which way? >:D

East, and then, depending on where you are in the US, anywhere from slightly south to significantly south. (Unless you're in HI, then it's slightly north. Of course, in HI or AK, it might be closer to look West.)
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 27, 2011, 04:52:47 PM
East, and then, depending on where you are in the US, anywhere from slightly south to significantly south. (Unless you're in HI, then it's slightly north. Of course, in HI or AK, it might be closer to look West.)

Well since I'm in Kuwait just NW of Kuwait City, Mecca would be SW of me right now.

Oh gee my soles are facing that way right now. >:D
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 27, 2011, 11:30:22 PM
Well since I'm in Kuwait just NW of Kuwait City, Mecca would be SW of me right now.

Oh gee my soles are facing that way right now. >:D

Been nice knowin' ya.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 28, 2011, 01:58:23 AM
Been nice knowin' ya.

Why you say that.
Title: Re: Iraq pullout?
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 28, 2011, 08:21:20 AM
For all the high-priced State Dept. and CIA talent we allegedly have, we seem to lack people who are capable of grasping tribalism in action.  Seems remarkably odd to me; seems suspect.

Occam's razor.  What seems like a complicated conspiracy is just governmental incompetence in action.