Iraq- the next steps

now that BHO is the new president, i wonder whats going to happen with iraq.
obama stated that he plans an 18 month withdrawal plan or s/t (as i am told my by liberal friends).
my concern with this, as any timetable, is that the terrorist also have a timetable. all they have to do is hide in their holes for the next 18 months, then once were out of there, they come in like a whirlwind, destroying the new government there.
im in favor of withdrawing, but i dont think it should be publicized until were actually out of there, so the terrorists never really know when were going to be out.
idk if thats realistic, but thats just what i think.
:sweatdrop:

What would you exxpect anyway? Once US forces will leave Iraq, the upcoming civil war is just a matter of time. Why prolong the inevitable?

Elections are over, which withdrawal ~;) Not possible Obama isn't nuts, some of his supporters may be but if you really expect a withdrawal now that things are finally shaping up, leaving will be harder to organize then staying anyways, imagine the chaos it would mean a massacre the minute you left.

What's next for Iraq is really a matter of what can be hammered out in the form a status of forces agreement between the two countries. Remember, the UN mandate making the US presence legal is due to expire soon and the US needs an agreement that is acceptable to both parties. Though there is a draft of an agreement in place a lot of Iraqis are asking/demanding changes to it before it becomes finalized.

What the agreement ends up being will largely bind Obama to the agreement unless he starts negotiating with the Iraqis to amend once he is inaugurated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

What's next for Iraq is really a matter of what can be hammered out in the form a status of forces agreement between the two countries. Remember, the UN mandate making the US presence legal is due to expire soon and the US needs an agreement that is acceptable to both parties. Though there is a draft of an agreement in place a lot of Iraqis are asking/demanding changes to it before it becomes finalized.

What the agreement ends up being will largely bind Obama to the agreement unless he starts negotiating with the Iraqis to amend once he is inaugurated.

---

That's how its currently framed. However, I believe you will find that Iraq asks the UN to extend things as is until June of 2009 so that they can negotiate with the new administration. Gives them another few months at current deployment levels but lets them negotiate for a better deal with someone who has a vested interest in minimizing U.S. MILITARY involvement in Iraq. Ch-ching.

Seamus , if it does indeed play out that way (and lets face it the existing SOFA draft has very little chance of getting through the cabinet approval stage let alone parliamentary approval) what chance do you think there is of getting the UN mandate extended as it currently stands ?
Especially since both Britain and America have been doing some pretty serious breaches of the existing terms of the mandate and Putin is on a power rush .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Elections are over, which withdrawal ~;) Not possible Obama isn't nuts, some of his supporters may be but if you really expect a withdrawal now that things are finally shaping up, leaving will be harder to organize then staying anyways, imagine the chaos it would mean a massacre the minute you left.

---

I think you forgot about a little country called Vietnam. It took 60 thousand American dead, the Tet Offensive (which despite the initial shock, wiped out the Viet Cong & decimated the NVA), an unpopular draft and a bloated war budget for the country to finally scream enough and insist on a timely withdrawal from Vietnam. In order to salvage something out of the war Nixon pulled out the bulk of America's troops but stepped up the aerial campaign to unprecedented heights, only to have the public continue to scream for a withdrawal. When he did so his public opinion rating soared.

Fast forward to 2008 and we have the mob and politicians still screaming for us to pull out of Iraq even though we've suffered a fraction of the losses and actually have the situation under control. It is obvious modern America does not have the same patience and constitution it did 40 years ago. Whether Obama is crazy enough to pull the trigger is not the question. When confronted with an economic recession and a laundry list of big government items on their to-do list the Democrats will need to make some tough choices. So a timely withdrawal from Iraq is still very likely. As to the aftermath... well hey, we threw Vietnam & millions of refugees to the dogs, why not Iraqis?

But in the end is it really up to Obama? Eventually the Democratic controlled Congress is going go come to terms with the fact that in order to pay for these expensive social programs (or that additional mortgage bailout bill aimed at borrowers) they're going to be forced to print more money or take money currently assigned to other endeavors (i.e. Defense spending & Iraq). Congressman Barney Frank has been unabashedly open about his desire to raise taxes and cut defense spending by 25%... You can bet your lowlands buttocks that a timely, measured pullout from Iraq will help free up a ton of money sooner than later. I'm sure House & Senate Democrats will forcefully present their case to Obama and given that he's never voted against his party he'll tow the line and rubber stamp it... albeit with a modest, token protest to keep his 'hope & change' credibility intact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Fast forward to 2008 and we have the mob and politicians still screaming for us to pull out of Iraq even though we've suffered a fraction of the losses and actually have the situation under control. It is obvious modern America does not have the same patience and constitution it did 40 years ago.

---

A waste is a waste.

Bloody hell spino ....."actually have the situation under control" ????????

Last month half of the remaining Christians in Mosul were driven out of their homes by the pershmerga , in Kirkuk Turkomen militia killed 25 and injured 200 Kurds who were trying to burn down their politicians office , the Iraqi army is in an armed standoff with the pershmerga who won't let them deploy against the PKK who are routinely getting bombed and shelled in Iraq by a country that is your ally (not of course forgetting the villages in Iraq held by the JDEM which regularly get shelled by Iran which isn't your ally)
Under control my arse , 40% of the population still don't have clean drinking water and cholera outbreaks reached a new peak in September .

What is so valuable about Iraqi lives? America has not been concerned about "collateral damage" recently. I can understand that preserving the oil is important, but since that is in the south and the north there is a large part of Iraq that can be left to it.

And let's not pretend that America or the West in general is particularly concerned about the sanctity of human life. Africa sheds lives every day through several civil wars, uprisings, border disputes and the tried and tested starvation, malnutrition and disease.


So, protect the assets we need, leave the rest of Iraq to it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So, protect the assets we need, leave the rest of Iraq to it.

~:smoking:

---

so by that reasoning, we should build heavily fortified bases around the oil drills, then leave the rest of iraq to destroy itself? :grin:

so by that reasoning, we should build heavily fortified bases around the oil drills, then leave the rest of iraq to destroy itself?

Rory is practical and emotionless to the extreme (i mean it as a compliment, its something i admire about your consistent political stance)

I have an open mind on Iraq, i was vehemently opposed to the war, for all kinds of reasons and i was basically right on my reasoning.... but i think once america and the uk went into iraq we had a responsibility to fix the mess we made, my position was closer to McCains than Obamas on Iraq...

what i can't decide is

1) how winnable is iraq, can we really stabilise the country from its current situation with troops and rebuilding ?

2) by having the troops there are we actually making the situation worse ?

3) if it is winnable... is it affordable ? can we keep enough troops in iraq and put enough money into rebuilding to make it successful

any answers appreciated, i have an open mind on the issue of staying or leaving being a good idea...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

What is so valuable about Iraqi lives? America has not been concerned about "collateral damage" recently. I can understand that preserving the oil is important, but since that is in the south and the north there is a large part of Iraq that can be left to it.

And let's not pretend that America or the West in general is particularly concerned about the sanctity of human life. Africa sheds lives every day through several civil wars, uprisings, border disputes and the tried and tested starvation, malnutrition and disease.


So, protect the assets we need, leave the rest of Iraq to it.

~:smoking:

---

Well see there's this thing called 'world opinion' which is currently the obsession of American politicians who have maintained an anti-war position since things took a turn for the worse in 2004 and a turn for the better in 2007 after the Surge was implemented. If the US pulls out before Iraq's government & military is ready (which doesn't appear to be anytime soon) it is a safe bet to say that the country will literally get ripped apart by internal and external forces. If you thought world opinion of the US was low now, just wait until they blame us for the bloody aftermath that will follow our withdrawal. See, the Vietnam the war was raging years before the US got involved so as much as our involvement hurt our image most people believed our intervention was a fool's errand to begin with. But with Iraq... regardless of the fact that we deposed a murderous dictator we are single handedly responsible for the current conditions on the ground, both good and bad. We opened Pandora's Box and our pulling out and leaving the Iraqi people exposed to its terrible contents is going to heighten anti-American sentiment to previously unimagined heights.

Now I personally don't care about world opinion or the fate of the Iraqi people but I DO care about the message this sends to our enemies. Expect a marked increase in our enemies' less savory activities once Iraq is thrown to the dogs.

If the current Shiite dominated government won't accommodate/share resources/include the Sunni minorities, and so far they have only payed lip service to that, then withdrawing US troops will lead to civil war. Coalition forces do more for the Sunni enclaves providing utilities, medical care,police protection, etc... than their own government.

Spino and Hosa , you both miss that its gonna happen if you pull out next year or in 10 years time .
Its as inevitable now as it was on the day of the invasion .

I don't see what security our 10 billion a month we sink in Iraq can provide that Iraq shouldn't be able to provide on its own with its 79 billion dollar surplus per year. If they can't do it now, I don't see why they would be able to do it in 3 years or 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I don't see what security our 10 billion a month we sink in Iraq can provide that Iraq shouldn't be able to provide on its own with its 79 billion dollar surplus per year. If they can't do it now, I don't see why they would be able to do it in 3 years or 5 years.

---

They lack the will to do it, not the means. Tribesman is correct that if the Shiites refuse to reconcile and choose to punish the Sunni instead then civil war is inevitable. I just choose to be less pessimistic is all and hope they come to their senses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

1) how winnable is iraq, can we really stabilise the country from its current situation with troops and rebuilding ?

2) by having the troops there are we actually making the situation worse ?

3) if it is winnable... is it affordable ? can we keep enough troops in iraq and put enough money into rebuilding to make it successful

any answers appreciated, i have an open mind on the issue of staying or leaving being a good idea...

---

Things in Iraq are back to front: the local government having little control over a foreign force, but at the same time not having to pay for the force.

As has been pointed out, Iraq now is accruing money from oil wealth, enough to pay for the reconstruction and troops.

The situation should be that the Iraqi government asks for military expertise and assistance from America / UK / elsewhere, and it pays for the expertise. Thus the control is with the Sovereign state. The current one-size-fits-all clearly doesn't.

Although the above is merely a change of view the effects could be striking:

As the government is in control of the situation and dictates what is done where the feeling of occupation would lessen; if the government tried to do things independently odds are it would make a complete mess of it and then ask for help - but would then be grateful for the help.

This ensures that the war is affordable as most cost is on Iraq.
If troops are thought to make things worse there is the option of paying for troops from other countries to assist, which might help the current tension.

But the most crucial point is that this requires the government to be strong enough to hold the country together. I think that this is in some ways a good thing: if the country can not hold itself together either monetarily, logistically, culturally or militarily, well, there isn't really a country there in the first place.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Tribesman is correct that if the Shiites refuse to reconcile and choose to punish the Sunni instead then civil war is inevitable.

---

Don't forget the other civil wars in waiting . Iraqs problems are characterised by more than just the release of long pent up sunni/shia disputes

I was opposed to the war, I think it was unnecessary and based on a collection of lies. That said, I support Obama’s plan on Iraq. He said the removal of the troops would be “responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government”. I think the time table is not set in stone. The 16 months troops removal is what the military experts he has used to base his decision on have said. Now, if the commanders on the ground say differently, I’m sure he would change his decision in order to suit their needs.

I think the US cannot afford the money they are spending in Iraq while Iraq makes billions on oil. In my opinion, no country can survive with an economic crisis and two wars going on at the same time. Supposing the “we fight them over there so they don’t come here” theory works (I’m not so sure), it will work just as well in Afghanistan. Actually, it should work even better because they will have to commit forces for trying to protect Osama bin Laden. Yeah, it’s easier to find a man if you are looking in the country where he’s hiding. I think Obama wants to move resources to where they are now really necessary. If the theory works, maybe any terrorists that may have shown up in Iraq after the US invasion (because they weren’t there before), will follow the US troops out of there and to Afghanistan.

Supposing the “we fight them over there so they don’t come here” theory works

That theory is crap (i know your not the one pushing it) the basic premise that all the terrorists currently in Iraq would be in america right now blowing things up, i ask you where were these terrorists before the iraq invasion ?

What actually happened is the iraq invasion created a bunch of terrorists, sure there were AQ members who went to iraq who may have gone elsewhere instead, but the crucial thing is AQ decided to go to iraq because they saw an excellent oppurtunity handed to them, the chance to convert a generation of young muslims infuriated by the foriegn policy of the US, the fact is iraq created a whole bunch of terrorists we wouldn't have had to deal with otherwise and gave an excellent recuiting tool to the ones already in AQ, to think that iraq was a secular state before we went there, it really was foolish to pursue iraq instead of AQ...

Ohh and another thing, im fairly sure OBL is dead, i can't know personally, but i really don't see the guy diving in and out of caves well hooked up to a machine (thats right i gave up spelling the word... i kept coming up with dailysis... which doesn't seem right at all....)

Quote:

---

Supposing the “we fight them over there so they don’t come here” theory works

---

I can't even count how many in-real-life Republicans I've heard the sentiment from that our war in Iraq is like.... a "shield", and that when we leave, it will be "shields down." Or, like Bill Maher jokes, that the terrorists don't know how to use mapquest and will figure out where America is by following our withdrawing troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Don't forget the other civil wars in waiting . Iraqs problems are characterised by more than just the release of long pent up sunni/shia disputes

---

Now my mind is foggy over this but, a remember reading on the BBC (yes I know) that the majority of Iraqis still wanted to be Iraqis and that country should stay together.

Actually having thought about it, perhaps they really mean, WE will be the IRAQIS and We will keep IRAQ, all those other bastards can bugger off...

Bugger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I can't even count how many in-real-life Republicans I've heard the sentiment from that our war in Iraq is like.... a "shield", and that when we leave, it will be "shields down." Or, like Bill Maher jokes, that the terrorists don't know how to use mapquest and will figure out where America is by following our withdrawing troops.

---

The Shield metaphor limps a bit.

Certainly by providing them with a nearby and obvious target on traditionally muslim terrain, we have focused jihadi attention on that target and probably discouraged other avenues of attack by encouraging a commitment of personnel and resources more "locally."

It is important to evaluate whether or not we have enhanced jihadi recruiting and resource donation so much that they will be able to fight the "local" struggle AND resume long range attacks (results since 2004 indicate a provisional "no.") OR if we are winning the war of attrition and forcing them to expend resources and lives faster than they can be recouped.

I don't know that we have clear answers for that, at least not in the public sphere.

The death rate of fanatics is minuscule. The outrage spans the entire Muslim world which is over 1 billion people.

The powers that help the insurgents have n interest in attacking the US mainland. This will only increase support for the wars and further surveillance. The current plan allows tying up masses of troops for the cost of almost obsolete equipment.

~:smoking:

Surprise.... Surprise... Obama is considering advice from his future generals who advise him against a 16 month pullout due to it being physically impossible:


http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...0.html?cnn=yes

Will Obama Have to Adjust His Timetable on Iraq?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Senior U.S. military officials will likely advise Barack Obama to adjust his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. While promising a 16-month timetable for getting all U.S. fighting forces out, Obama repeatedly insisted on what he calls a "responsible" withdrawal. Pulling nearly all U.S. troops and equipment out of Iraq in 16 months is "physically impossible," says a top officer involved in briefing the President-elect on U.S. operations in Iraq. That schedule would create a bottleneck of equipment and troops in the south of Iraq and Kuwait where brigades repair, clean and load vehicles and weapons for the trip home, said the official. Others say the U.S. could conceivably pull out on that time scale, although that would require leaving more equipment behind. A more important concern for officers is that the security gains in Iraq would be put at risk if troops were withdrawn before the Iraqi security forces are in a position to protect their own communities and borders.

Already, the drawdown of troops is accelerating. The Pentagon announced Wednesday that a brigade of the 101st Airborne division will rotate out of Iraq before Christmas, as much as two months ahead of schedule, bringing the total number of combat brigades in Iraq down to 14 from its late 2007 peak of 20. But there is a limit to how quickly U.S. soldiers can depart the country while maintaining the current level of security. Although security has improved dramatically in many neighborhoods in Baghdad over the past year, the ability of the Iraqi security forces to act independently and effectively, while improved, remains inconsistent. Iraqi forces have yet to shift their focus from counterinsurgency operations to defending Iraq's borders. The Iraqi air force, for example, announced this week that it has ordered French- and American-made fighters, but its planned 32 squadrons won't be fully up and flying until 2015. The former insurgents who joined the "Awakening" movement or neighborhood watch programs are being partially integrated into the Iraqi security forces, but this remains a point of tension amid continuing mutual mistrust between these Sunni groups and the Shi'ite-dominated government. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, meanwhile, continues to find sanctuary in and around the northern city of Mosul.

In an interview with TIME, Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno said the numbers of U.S. troops can and will go down. "We don't have to do it with 150,000; we can do it with less," Odierno told TIME, without specifically addressing Obama's campaign pledge. But the drawdown will have to be done "slowly, in a deliberate way, so we don't give back the gains we've had."

The Iraqi government, for its part, has asked that all U.S. troops be pulled out of Iraqi cities by June 2009 and out of Iraq by 2012. That remains part of the Status of Forces draft agreement currently being renegotiated between Washington and Baghdad, to create a legal framework for the operation of U.S. troops in Iraq when their current mandate expires on January 1. Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshiyar Zebari, says he is confident that the Obama administration will not pull U.S. troops out of Iraq too quickly. Obama has agreed to "consult with the Iraqi government and the U.S. military in the field," Zebari told BBC television on Wednesday. And Obama himself has indicated that he's willing to revisit his 16-month withdrawal schedule. He acknowledged over the summer that it may be necessary to "slow the pace because of the safety of American troops," he said. "I would be a poor commander-in-chief if I didn't take facts on the ground into account." (See pictures of life inside a Baghdad prison.)

Obama received his first on-the-ground briefing in Iraq on the morning of July 21 at a military base adjacent to the Basra airport. During the briefing, said a senior U.S. military official, then-Senator Obama seemed "receptive" and "asked good questions." The hope among senior officers in Iraq is that President-elect Obama will make good on another promise he's made over an over again from the stump: "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

Surprise.... Surprise... Obama is considering advice from his future generals who advise him against a 16 month pullout due to it being physically impossible:

---

I fully expected him to contact Ronald McDonald when the subject of troop withdrawals comes up, not generals. srsly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I fully expected him to contact Ronald McDonald when the subject of troop withdrawals comes up, not generals. srsly

---

I was thinking Big Bird and Cookie Monster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kush

I was thinking Big Bird and Cookie Monster.

---

Big Bird should be in charge of health and human services. The Cookie Monster should be in charge of agriculture.

Quote:

---

Surprise.... Surprise...

---

Wow kush A is not possible because Bis not possible B is not really possible because Cmay not be possible C might be hard but D would be even harder
If

Quote:

---

D

---

doesn't work then talking about Ais errrrr..........what exactly ??????:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Or to look at it another way , your article says noone really said nothing to anybody about anything...but....errrrr....lets fill the page with typeface:2thumbsup: