Obama Administration Supports Reducing U.S. Forces To 3,000 By End of 2011

[High_Gravity]

I hope this move won't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory....I hope this is not that foolish of a move..

After everything we have sacraficed in this war, securing victory should be the first priority..Why would Obama not listen to his generals?

I know he's the commander in chief, but why should we believe his judgment is better?

Everyone wants our troops home, but I don't think we should forget about those who died for this cause, and what it would be like for them to die in vain.

Leaving a small number of troops like this is even worse than pulling out completely, if we pull them all out we will ensure our troops are safe, the situation in Iraq for better or worse is pretty much as good as it is going to get. If you leave a small number of US Troops in a hostile country like Iraq they will be sitting ducks for all the insurgent groups out there, its a bad idea. This whole thing reminds me of the Beirut barracks bombing back in the 80s.

I agree 0 is a better alternative than 3000, but im not sure that the situation is as good as it's going to get....I would defer to the men in charge of the war.

I will conced that its hard to imagine a total collapse...We'll still have amost 50,000 troops there any way, but we want a secure base, as well as a a secure Iraq..

In your opinion, would trusting the generals not be the right thing to do?

I totally trust the Generals however I think we have hit a wall, our economy is in the dumps and our people are tired of this war, you can't fight a successful war without the peoples support, what would the objective be if we stayed in Iraq? our presence gives the insurgents credibility and street rep with the Iraqi people, if we go the insurgents will have a harder time justifying their activities.

 

[Nosmo King]

Gee! I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq! I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question. Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.

The remaining 3,000 are not combat troops. They are trainers, naval and air advisers.

But, to the stupid and lazy among us, it's just more fodder for their insipid hate every breath Obama takes campaign.

I just worry that the American people can be mislead by the stupid and lazy. Well, consider the election of 2000.

 

[High_Gravity]

Gee! I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq! I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question. Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.

The remaining 3,000 are not combat troops. They are trainers, naval and air advisers.

But, to the stupid and lazy among us, it's just more fodder for their insipid hate every breath Obama takes campaign.

I just worry that the American people can be mislead by the stupid and lazy. Well, consider the election of 2000.

You think the Iraqi insurgents give a flying fuck whether these troops are advisors and trainers? all the combat troops are pretty much out of Iraq, that makes it even easier for the insurgents to attack the Americans and plan operations. Do you seriously fucking think the average Iraqi Soldier or Policeman is going to risk his life to protect an American Soldier? when you leave a small number of troops like this in a country in essence you are depending on the Soldiers and Police of that country to protect them, the Iraqi Military and Police are infiltrated with both Sunni and Shite insurgents who would like nothing better than to pull off a spectacular attack on the Americans while we are vulnerable, for you to sit here and type up a post like this shows how disconnected you are with the realities on the ground in Iraq and how fucking niaeve you are.

 

[Rocko]

Leaving a small number of troops like this is even worse than pulling out completely, if we pull them all out we will ensure our troops are safe, the situation in Iraq for better or worse is pretty much as good as it is going to get. If you leave a small number of US Troops in a hostile country like Iraq they will be sitting ducks for all the insurgent groups out there, its a bad idea. This whole thing reminds me of the Beirut barracks bombing back in the 80s.

I agree 0 is a better alternative than 3000, but im not sure that the situation is as good as it's going to get....I would defer to the men in charge of the war.

I will conced that its hard to imagine a total collapse...We'll still have amost 50,000 troops there any way, but we want a secure base, as well as a a secure Iraq..

In your opinion, would trusting the generals not be the right thing to do?

I totally trust the Generals however I think we have hit a wall, our economy is in the dumps and our people are tired of this war, you can't fight a successful war without the peoples support, what would the objective be if we stayed in Iraq? our presence gives the insurgents credibility and street rep with the Iraqi people, if we go the insurgents will have a harder time justifying their activities.

It may be the case that having combat troops in there is counterproductive, but that's not what the generals are saying..Iraq does want us out, which is also something to consider...it is a tough call, but IMHO I Think our generals are in the best position to make the call.

I know the war is unpopular, but every war since WWII has been unpopular...I feel domestic populist sentiment really shouldn't factor in to the decision.

My disappointment is I feel this decision is more about politics than winning, and insuring a safe return for our troops, but maybe I'm being too cynical...I hope I am.

 

[Nosmo King]

Gee! I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq! I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question. Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.

The remaining 3,000 are not combat troops. They are trainers, naval and air advisers.

But, to the stupid and lazy among us, it's just more fodder for their insipid hate every breath Obama takes campaign.

I just worry that the American people can be mislead by the stupid and lazy. Well, consider the election of 2000.

You think the Iraqi insurgents give a flying fuck whether these troops are advisors and trainers? all the combat troops are pretty much out of Iraq, that makes it even easier for the insurgents to attack the Americans and plan operations. Do you seriously fucking think the average Iraqi Soldier or Policeman is going to risk his life to protect an American Soldier? when you leave a small number of troops like this in a country in essence you are depending on the Soldiers and Police of that country to protect them, the Iraqi Military and Police are infiltrated with both Sunni and Shite insurgents who would like nothing better than to pull off a spectacular attack on the Americans while we are vulnerable, for you to sit here and type up a post like this shows how disconnected you are with the realities on the ground in Iraq and how fucking niaeve you are.

American soldiers patrolling the streets, conducting raids in homes, stationed among the general population are the soldiers, in insurgent's eyes, worth attacking. Advisers stationed on Iraqi military bases, particularly 3,000 stationed at various bases, are invisible compared to the presence Americans had just five years ago.

 

[High_Gravity]

I agree 0 is a better alternative than 3000, but im not sure that the situation is as good as it's going to get....I would defer to the men in charge of the war.

I will conced that its hard to imagine a total collapse...We'll still have amost 50,000 troops there any way, but we want a secure base, as well as a a secure Iraq..

In your opinion, would trusting the generals not be the right thing to do?

I totally trust the Generals however I think we have hit a wall, our economy is in the dumps and our people are tired of this war, you can't fight a successful war without the peoples support, what would the objective be if we stayed in Iraq? our presence gives the insurgents credibility and street rep with the Iraqi people, if we go the insurgents will have a harder time justifying their activities.

It may be the case that having combat troops in there is counterproductive, but that's not what the generals are saying..Iraq does want us out, which is also something to consider...it is a tough call, but IMHO I Think our generals are in the best position to make the call.

I know the war is unpopular, but every war since WWII has been unpopular...I feel domestic populist sentiment really shouldn't factor in to the decision.

My disappointment is I feel this decision is more about politics than winning, and insuring a safe return for our troops, but maybe I'm being too cynical...I hope I am.

I trust our Generals however I don't think its a good idea to have our Generals over ride the Iraqi government if they don't want us to stay, not to mention leaving 3000 US Troops in a hostile country like Iraq is madness and suicide, even the Generals for the most part have said that. 3000 Troops is nothing we have never had enough Troops in this country from the get go.

 

[High_Gravity]

Gee! I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq! I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question. Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.

The remaining 3,000 are not combat troops. They are trainers, naval and air advisers.

But, to the stupid and lazy among us, it's just more fodder for their insipid hate every breath Obama takes campaign.

I just worry that the American people can be mislead by the stupid and lazy. Well, consider the election of 2000.

You think the Iraqi insurgents give a flying fuck whether these troops are advisors and trainers? all the combat troops are pretty much out of Iraq, that makes it even easier for the insurgents to attack the Americans and plan operations. Do you seriously fucking think the average Iraqi Soldier or Policeman is going to risk his life to protect an American Soldier? when you leave a small number of troops like this in a country in essence you are depending on the Soldiers and Police of that country to protect them, the Iraqi Military and Police are infiltrated with both Sunni and Shite insurgents who would like nothing better than to pull off a spectacular attack on the Americans while we are vulnerable, for you to sit here and type up a post like this shows how disconnected you are with the realities on the ground in Iraq and how fucking niaeve you are.

American soldiers patrolling the streets, conducting raids in homes, stationed among the general population are the soldiers, in insurgent's eyes, worth attacking. Advisers stationed on Iraqi military bases, particularly 3,000 stationed at various bases, are invisible compared to the presence Americans had just five years ago.

The insurgents are still firing mortars at bases where the trainers and advisors are, are you seriously telling me these trainers and advisors will be safe under Iraqi protection?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh


poor little con.

i bet you wish he would use color coded threat bombs to gain votes instead huh?

Tell me something, if you can be honest for once, why aren't you upset that Obama is breaking his promise to bring everyone in Iraq home?

 

[High_Gravity]

Explain why we had our highest number of US Troops killed in June in the last 2 years, thats a few months ago, the US is still running missions in Iraq too.

U.S. Casualties At 2-Year High In Iraq, May Spike If Administration Pledges To Stay Longer

Two American troops were killed in northern Iraq yesterday while “conducting operations.” The New York Times reports that the military “did not elaborate, but that terminology is usually meant to indicate the deaths were caused by enemy attack.” And earlier this month, an Iranian-backed Shiite militia group attacked and killed six U.S. soldiers. Now, total U.S. combat deaths in Iraq in June has reached 11, the most since May 2009. But despite the fact that Americans are still dying combat related deaths in Iraq, President Obama announced last year that the U.S ended hostilities in Iraq and said as recently as last week in his speech that America’s combat mission there was already over:

Yet tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding. Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm’s way. We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country.

This simply isn’t the reality that troops on the ground are facing. Putting the number of recent U.S. combat deaths in Iraq aside, militants there are still attacking U.S. forces there with continuing regularity even though the Americans are relegated to their bases and cannot conduct combat operations without permission from the Iraqis. U.S. forces are facing “an increasingly dangerous environment in southern Iraq,” the AP reported last month, “where Shiite militias trying to claim they are driving out the U.S. occupiers have stepped up attacks against bases and troops.”

Indeed, the Irainian-backed group Kataib Hezbollah, which claimed responsibility for the attack earlier this month, said its attacks on U.S. troops were aimed at stopping the “occupation interference” in Iraq’s affairs and forcing the U.S. to abide by the withdrawal deadline. And while it’s unclear how much Muqtada al-Sadr’s supporters are participating in attacks on U.S. forces, he has pledged to unleash his Mehdi Army if the Americans stay past 2011.

One analyst has also said that he has seen an increase in the use of armor piercing IEDs called explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs. “The increase in attacks shows that Iranian-backed cells enjoy greater freedom of movement than they have in the past,” said Michael Knights, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

At the same time, top U.S. officials like incoming Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have said that if the Iraqis ask, the U.S. will keep an unspecified number of troops (some have estimated around 10,000) past the Dec. 31 total withdrawal deadline. Some have cited increased sectarian tentions as one reason for the Americans to stay, but as journalist Mark Kukis noted recently, a prolonged American presence there will only exacerbate the problem:

Secular, nonsectarian Sunni militants, men who consider themselves Iraqi nationalists for resisting a foreign military presence, drift into the company of Iraq’s al-Qaeda contingent when seeking help to lash out at U.S. forces. This drift in effect bolsters al-Qaeda radicals, allowing them to pursue more easily sectarian violence against Shi’ites. Increased sectarian aggression on the part of al-Qaeda produces a violent response from Shi’ite militias such as the Mahdi Army and the Iraqi government, whose security forces are quick to indulge in brutal crackdowns against Sunni communities where militants are thought to be active.

U.S. Casualties At 2-Year High In Iraq, May Spike If Administration Pledges To Stay Longer | ThinkProgress

 

[MikeK]

This is madness, 3000 US Troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks, if they are going to reduce this much get all our troops out!

I agree with you about getting them all out of Iraq -- and Afghanistan, too, in my opinion. But where leaving 3,000 behind is concerned, I believe their safety will depend on the type of weaponry they have and how widely distributed they are.

I understand we have built an enormous embassy in Iraq (for what reason I have no idea). So I'm assuming the 3,000 troops will be billeted there and will serve mainly to secure that place. And I'll wager they will be armed with a few sub-nuclear weapons to deal with a major assault.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAh


poor little con.

i bet you wish he would use color coded threat bombs to gain votes instead huh?

Tell you what, when Iran invades Iraq, builds a nuclear bomb, and starts making demands of us if we want to eat, don't expect any sympathy from anyone you are laughing at.

When was the last time Iran invaded another country with it's regular military? I mean, like, this century?

This is fine example of a country radicalized by outside interference. Ours.

Was December 2009 in this century, or do you want something after that?

Iran invades 'Iraqi' territory to seize oil field - Telegraph

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gee! I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq! I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question. Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.

The remaining 3,000 are not combat troops. They are trainers, naval and air advisers.

But, to the stupid and lazy among us, it's just more fodder for their insipid hate every breath Obama takes campaign.

I just worry that the American people can be mislead by the stupid and lazy. Well, consider the election of 2000.

Is that supposed to make me feel better? Do you think the fact that they are there to train, not fight, will prevent insurgents from attacking them?

 

[High_Gravity]

Gee! I wonder how many folks bothered to ask which troops would be left in Iraq! I have the feeling that some folks here are just too damn lazy to consider that question. Some folks are just too damn stupid to ask that question.

The remaining 3,000 are not combat troops. They are trainers, naval and air advisers.

But, to the stupid and lazy among us, it's just more fodder for their insipid hate every breath Obama takes campaign.

I just worry that the American people can be mislead by the stupid and lazy. Well, consider the election of 2000.

Is that supposed to make me feel better? Do you thin the fact that they are there to rain, not fight, will prevent insurgents from attacking them?

The fact that people are this niaeve to think US Military trainers will be immune to attacks from insurgents scares and baffles me, the bases where these trainers live are mortared and having rockets fired at them every day.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree 0 is a better alternative than 3000, but im not sure that the situation is as good as it's going to get....I would defer to the men in charge of the war.

I will conced that its hard to imagine a total collapse...We'll still have amost 50,000 troops there any way, but we want a secure base, as well as a a secure Iraq..

In your opinion, would trusting the generals not be the right thing to do?

I totally trust the Generals however I think we have hit a wall, our economy is in the dumps and our people are tired of this war, you can't fight a successful war without the peoples support, what would the objective be if we stayed in Iraq? our presence gives the insurgents credibility and street rep with the Iraqi people, if we go the insurgents will have a harder time justifying their activities.

It may be the case that having combat troops in there is counterproductive, but that's not what the generals are saying..Iraq does want us out, which is also something to consider...it is a tough call, but IMHO I Think our generals are in the best position to make the call.

I know the war is unpopular, but every war since WWII has been unpopular...I feel domestic populist sentiment really shouldn't factor in to the decision.

My disappointment is I feel this decision is more about politics than winning, and insuring a safe return for our troops, but maybe I'm being too cynical...I hope I am.

Since you think the generals should make the call, they actually want 27,000 troops to stay in order to handle the security and training needs. When Obama pushed they said they could do the job with 10,000. Do you feel better about the 3,000 figure now?

 

[High_Gravity]

This is madness, 3000 US Troops in Iraq will be sitting ducks, if they are going to reduce this much get all our troops out!

I agree with you about getting them all out of Iraq -- and Afghanistan, too, in my opinion. But where leaving 3,000 behind is concerned, I believe their safety will depend on the type of weaponry they have and how widely distributed they are.

I understand we have built an enormous embassy in Iraq (for what reason I have no idea). So I'm assuming the 3,000 troops will be billeted there and will serve mainly to secure that place. And I'll wager they will be armed with a few sub-nuclear weapons to deal with a major assault.

No matter how heavily armed these 3000 brave men and women are, they will not all be at 1 base keep that in mind, you don't keep all your eggs in 1 basket. If we are going to train and advise Iraqis we can't have everyone at the Embassy. I am guessing most of the security at the embassy will be private contractors. The 3000 Troops will be spread out across Iraq in several bases having to heavily depend on the Iraqis for safety and security, that is the part I don't like about it. Even though the American public for the most part has their minds off of this war and we are scaling back our presence there, there are thousands of heavily armed insurgents who are at war with us and want American blood, don't forget that.

 

[Dude111]

Explain why we had our highest number of US Troops killed in June in the last 2 years, thats a few months ago, the US is still running missions in Iraq too.

Exactly bud!!!!

Time to get them out of harms way!!

 

[Rocko]

I totally trust the Generals however I think we have hit a wall, our economy is in the dumps and our people are tired of this war, you can't fight a successful war without the peoples support, what would the objective be if we stayed in Iraq? our presence gives the insurgents credibility and street rep with the Iraqi people, if we go the insurgents will have a harder time justifying their activities.

It may be the case that having combat troops in there is counterproductive, but that's not what the generals are saying..Iraq does want us out, which is also something to consider...it is a tough call, but IMHO I Think our generals are in the best position to make the call.

I know the war is unpopular, but every war since WWII has been unpopular...I feel domestic populist sentiment really shouldn't factor in to the decision.

My disappointment is I feel this decision is more about politics than winning, and insuring a safe return for our troops, but maybe I'm being too cynical...I hope I am.

Since you think the generals should make the call, they actually want 27,000 troops to stay in order to handle the security and training needs. When Obama pushed they said they could do the job with 10,000. Do you feel better about the 3,000 figure now?

My problem with the 3000 has more to do with the concern of the lives of the 3000 troops...maybe the generals are just concerned with victory, and are not concerned enough with cost (fiscally and life)...we have to make the choice to trust someone though, and whether I trust Obama or not, I don't like the idea of 3000.

To the other poster...I call them combat troops, because that's what they are....calling them anything else is just politics....its like saying investment instead of spending.

 

[High_Gravity]

It may be the case that having combat troops in there is counterproductive, but that's not what the generals are saying..Iraq does want us out, which is also something to consider...it is a tough call, but IMHO I Think our generals are in the best position to make the call.

I know the war is unpopular, but every war since WWII has been unpopular...I feel domestic populist sentiment really shouldn't factor in to the decision.

My disappointment is I feel this decision is more about politics than winning, and insuring a safe return for our troops, but maybe I'm being too cynical...I hope I am.

Since you think the generals should make the call, they actually want 27,000 troops to stay in order to handle the security and training needs. When Obama pushed they said they could do the job with 10,000. Do you feel better about the 3,000 figure now?

My problem with the 3000 has more to do with the concern of the lives of the 3000 troops...maybe the generals are just concerned with victory, and are not concerned enough with cost (fiscally and life)...we have to make the choice to trust someone though, and whether I trust Obama or not, I don't like the idea of 3000.

To the other poster...I call them combat troops, because that's what they are....calling them anything else is just politics....its like saying investment instead of spending.

The insurgents will go after these Troops regardless of their MOS, even if they are cooks and shoe shine boys. People who think the insurgents are only going to target combat troops are niaeve and completely disconnected about whats going down on the ground in Iraq.

 

[Rocko]

Since you think the generals should make the call, they actually want 27,000 troops to stay in order to handle the security and training needs. When Obama pushed they said they could do the job with 10,000. Do you feel better about the 3,000 figure now?

My problem with the 3000 has more to do with the concern of the lives of the 3000 troops...maybe the generals are just concerned with victory, and are not concerned enough with cost (fiscally and life)...we have to make the choice to trust someone though, and whether I trust Obama or not, I don't like the idea of 3000.

To the other poster...I call them combat troops, because that's what they are....calling them anything else is just politics....its like saying investment instead of spending.

The insurgents will go after these Troops regardless of their MOS, even if they are cooks and shoe shine boys. People who think the insurgents are only going to target combat troops are niaeve and completely disconnected about whats going down on the ground in Iraq.

exactly, lol maybe they should try to explain to the insurgents that their not combat troops..

 

[High_Gravity]

My problem with the 3000 has more to do with the concern of the lives of the 3000 troops...maybe the generals are just concerned with victory, and are not concerned enough with cost (fiscally and life)...we have to make the choice to trust someone though, and whether I trust Obama or not, I don't like the idea of 3000.

To the other poster...I call them combat troops, because that's what they are....calling them anything else is just politics....its like saying investment instead of spending.

The insurgents will go after these Troops regardless of their MOS, even if they are cooks and shoe shine boys. People who think the insurgents are only going to target combat troops are niaeve and completely disconnected about whats going down on the ground in Iraq.

exactly, lol maybe they should try to explain to the insurgents that their not combat troops..

All that will do is make them attack harder because they will feel the Troops we left in Iraq are not as prepared and well equipped as the ones that left, its better off letting them believe all 3000 of those guys are Rambo.