Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
BAGHDAD The speaker of Iraq's parliament on Monday accused neighboring nations of meddling in Iraqi affairs and signaled it will only get worse if the country is seen as vulnerable after U.S. troops leave at the end of the year.
Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, a Sunni Muslim, did not name the Mideast nations and did not offer specifics. Iraq's Sunnis long have worried about Iran's burgeoning influence in Baghdad, where the Shiite-dominated government has built ties with Tehran since the 2003 fall of Saddam Hussein.
Top U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, voiced similar concerns over the weekend.
"Iraq now suffers from points of weakness," al-Nujaifi told a news conference in Baghdad. "If neighboring countries see that Iraq is weak and incapable of protecting its borders and internal security, then definitely there will be interference. This interference does exist now."
Limiting Iran's influence in Baghdad was a top U.S. pitch to keep American troops in Iraq past the Dec. 31 withdrawal deadline set in a 2008 security agreement. Washington has feared that meddling by Iran, a Shiite Muslim theocracy, could inflame tensions between Iraq's majority Shiites and minority Sunnis, setting off a chain reaction of violence and disputes across the Mideast.
About 39,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, down from 166,000 in October 2007, the peak of the American military surge to curb sectarian killings that brought the country to the brink of civil war. Nearly all will leave after Iraq's government and the U.S. failed this month to reach an agreement on a few thousand to stay and continue training security forces.
Speaking to reporters in Bali, Indonesia, Panetta noted that an estimated 40,000 U.S. troops will be stationed across the Mideast even after the Iraq withdrawal, including about 23,000 in neighboring Kuwait.
"So we will always have a force that will be present and that will deal with any threats from Iran," Panetta said.
Iraq is located between Iran and Sunni powerhouse Saudi Arabia. Iraq has seen terrorist traffic cross over its Syrian border and is grappling with a rebel force in its north that has for years targeted Turkey.
Al-Nujaifi suggested stepped up diplomatic talks across the Mideast "because a stable Iraq will bring stability to the whole region."
With the military withdrawal, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will shoulder much of the responsibility of training Iraqi forces, with the help of a small number of NATO troops. But a report released early Monday cast deep doubt on the Embassy's ability to do so, noting that a State Department program to train Iraqi police lacks focus, could become a "bottomless pit" of American money and may not even be wanted by the Iraqi department it's supposed to help.
The findings by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction paint what is supposed to be the State Department's flagship program in Iraq in a harsh light. It found that only a small portion about 12 percent of the millions of dollars budgeted will actually go to helping the Iraqi police.
The "vast preponderance of money" will pay for security and other items like living quarters for the people doing the training, the review found. It also said that although the State Department has known since 2009 it would be taking over the training program, it failed to develop a comprehensive and detailed plan for the training.
"Without specific goals, objectives and performance measures, the PDP (Police Development Program) could become a 'bottomless pit' for U.S. dollars intended for mentoring, advising and training the Iraqi police forces," the report stated.
Moreover, the Iraqi government has yet to sign off on the program and doesn't seem to want it. The report quoted Adnan al-Asadi, who oversees daily operations at Iraq's Ministry of Interior (MOI) as suggesting the U.S. should spend the money on something for the American people instead.
"What tangible benefit will Iraqis see from this police training program? With most of the money spent on lodging, security, support, all the MOI gets is a little expertise, and that is if the program materializes. It has yet to start," al-Asadi said.
Obama Announces Iraq Troops Will Be Withdrawn By End Of 2011
WASHINGTON -- Fulfilling a long-held campaign promise, President Barack Obama announced Friday that he will pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, as conditioned by the Status of Forces Agreement with the country.
"As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end," Obama said. "So today I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year."
"After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," he said.
In confirming his plans for troop withdrawal by the end of 2011, the president fulfilled the most memorable pledge he made in securing the nomination of president from his party. There had been reports the administration had been plotting ways to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government so as to prolong America's presence in the country. Those rumors heightened concerns among Democrats who backed Obama in part because of his pledge to end the war in Iraq.
"This will allow us to say definitively that the Iraq war is over, and that the partnership between the US and Iraq will be a normal one between two sovereign nations," said a senior White House official.
There are currently 41,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, virtually all of whom will be pulled by December 31, 2011. The White House announced that 4,000 to 5,000 security contractors would remain in the country in various posts. At the height of U.S. involvement in 2006, there were 170,000 soldiers on the ground.
Obama said the end of U.S. involvement in Iraq reflects a larger transition away from "the tide of war." He referenced the fact that troops are beginning to return home from Afghanistan and said that trend will only continue as the U.S. refocuses on its needs at home.
"After a decade of war, the nation we need to build and the nation we will build is our own," he said.
The president spoke before the press corps at 12:45 p.m. to announce his decision. He held a video conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki about an hour before that, in which the topic of a troop drawdown was discussed.
"During their conversation, President Obama and P.M. Maliki strongly agreed that this is the best way forward for both countries," the White House official said.
More than 4,400 American military lives have been lost since the start of the war in March of 2003, and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, according to Iraq Body Count, which cross-checks news reports with hospital and other official data. As of March, the war had cost the U.S. $806 billion.
Under an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in 2008, U.S. troops were due to end their mission in Iraq by the end of 2011. But for much of this year, Obama and his advisers have been trying to find a way to retain some troop presence in the country.
According to people familiar with the negotiations -- which were conducted for the Obama administration by some of the same individuals who led the Bush-era process -- the main sticking points in recent months were over the precise number of troops that would stay behind, and whether the Iraqi government would agree to provide them with legal immunity.
Experts on the mission in Iraq say that despite the public protestations on all sides, both parties were eager to come to an agreement over a continuing troop presence: the Iraqis because they hoped for help in providing stability, and the Americans because they wanted a futher bulwark against encroachment by Iran.
But the Iraq government also faced internal divisions over the proposition, especially among Shia groups and Iraqi nationalists.
In the spring, Muqtada al-Sadr, the volatile and popular leader of the now-dormant Mahdi Army, threatened to unleash his Shia militia if American troops remained into 2012, although he occasionally wavered on that pledge.
Over the summer, American negotiators were hoping to get Iraqi approval for about 10,000 troops to remain in the country, in order to continue training operations and to secure American diplomatic posts. But by early September, it was becoming increasingly clear that the Iraqis would not approve such a large mission.
A source familiar with the process told The Huffington Post at the time that the president was willing to leave as few as 3,000 troops in Iraq, but that some in his administration feared such a small number of soldiers would be ill-equipped to handle the missions they were assigned.
Obama Announces Iraq Troops Will Be Withdrawn By End Of 2011
, and he did it with honor.
Obama Announces Iraq Troops Will Be Withdrawn By End Of 2011
WASHINGTON -- Fulfilling a long-held campaign promise, President Barack Obama announced Friday that he will pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, as conditioned by the Status of Forces Agreement with the country.
"As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end," Obama said. "So today I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year."
"After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," he said.
In confirming his plans for troop withdrawal by the end of 2011, the president fulfilled the most memorable pledge he made in securing the nomination of president from his party. There had been reports the administration had been plotting ways to renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government so as to prolong America's presence in the country. Those rumors heightened concerns among Democrats who backed Obama in part because of his pledge to end the war in Iraq.
"This will allow us to say definitively that the Iraq war is over, and that the partnership between the US and Iraq will be a normal one between two sovereign nations," said a senior White House official.
There are currently 41,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, virtually all of whom will be pulled by December 31, 2011. The White House announced that 4,000 to 5,000 security contractors would remain in the country in various posts. At the height of U.S. involvement in 2006, there were 170,000 soldiers on the ground.
Obama said the end of U.S. involvement in Iraq reflects a larger transition away from "the tide of war." He referenced the fact that troops are beginning to return home from Afghanistan and said that trend will only continue as the U.S. refocuses on its needs at home.
"After a decade of war, the nation we need to build and the nation we will build is our own," he said.
The president spoke before the press corps at 12:45 p.m. to announce his decision. He held a video conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki about an hour before that, in which the topic of a troop drawdown was discussed.
"During their conversation, President Obama and P.M. Maliki strongly agreed that this is the best way forward for both countries," the White House official said.
More than 4,400 American military lives have been lost since the start of the war in March of 2003, and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, according to Iraq Body Count, which cross-checks news reports with hospital and other official data. As of March, the war had cost the U.S. $806 billion.
Under an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in 2008, U.S. troops were due to end their mission in Iraq by the end of 2011. But for much of this year, Obama and his advisers have been trying to find a way to retain some troop presence in the country.
According to people familiar with the negotiations -- which were conducted for the Obama administration by some of the same individuals who led the Bush-era process -- the main sticking points in recent months were over the precise number of troops that would stay behind, and whether the Iraqi government would agree to provide them with legal immunity.
Experts on the mission in Iraq say that despite the public protestations on all sides, both parties were eager to come to an agreement over a continuing troop presence: the Iraqis because they hoped for help in providing stability, and the Americans because they wanted a futher bulwark against encroachment by Iran.
But the Iraq government also faced internal divisions over the proposition, especially among Shia groups and Iraqi nationalists.
In the spring, Muqtada al-Sadr, the volatile and popular leader of the now-dormant Mahdi Army, threatened to unleash his Shia militia if American troops remained into 2012, although he occasionally wavered on that pledge.
Over the summer, American negotiators were hoping to get Iraqi approval for about 10,000 troops to remain in the country, in order to continue training operations and to secure American diplomatic posts. But by early September, it was becoming increasingly clear that the Iraqis would not approve such a large mission.
A source familiar with the process told The Huffington Post at the time that the president was willing to leave as few as 3,000 troops in Iraq, but that some in his administration feared such a small number of soldiers would be ill-equipped to handle the missions they were assigned.
Obama Announces Iraq Troops Will Be Withdrawn By End Of 2011
I think this is too fast to pull out troops out with stability for the country.
However, with the new M.O. of iraq not giving our soldiers immunity I support the president in this decision.
I don't think their country is ready for our troops to pull out but its not worth leaving them there under that kind of legal risk otherwise.
Obama Announces Iraq Troops Will Be Withdrawn By End Of 2011
Obama Announces Iraq Troops Will Be Withdrawn By End Of 2011
I think this is too fast to pull out troops out with stability for the country.
However, with the new M.O. of iraq not giving our soldiers immunity I support the president in this decision.
I don't think their country is ready for our troops to pull out but its not worth leaving them there under that kind of legal risk otherwise.
I think we've done all we can do pretty much in Iraq, I would never support keeping troops there if they don't get immunity from Iraqi courts.
Did you know that the US will be withdrawing from Iraq at end of 2011 only because Iraq refused continued US presence? - Iraq refuses immunity; US troops likely to leave
Did you know that the US will be withdrawing from Iraq at end of 2011 only because Iraq refused continued US presence? - Iraq refuses immunity; US troops likely to leave
The report says the talks are part of U.S. plans to boost its military presence in the Gulf so the United States is able to respond quickly in the event of a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
The Times says in addition to maintaining a combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is also considering sending more warships through international waters in the region. The size of the potential standby force has not been determined. There was no immediate confirmation of the Times report, which was based on interviews with unnamed military officials and diplomats.
U.S. military plans in the region have been under discussion for months, but the Times said the talks became more urgent when President Barack Obama announced that the last American troops would leave Iraq by the end of December. The Times said the U.S. government is seeking to increase existing military ties with all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.
Source
We gonna stick around inna neighborhood just in case Iran gets any ideas...
Report: US Plans Post-Iraq Buildup in Gulf
October 30, 2011 : The New York Times newspaper reports the United States is negotiating with Kuwait to allow American combat troops to be based in the Persian Gulf area after completing the announced withdrawal from Iraq by the end of this year.
The report says the talks are part of U.S. plans to boost its military presence in the Gulf so the United States is able to respond quickly in the event of a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
The Times says in addition to maintaining a combat presence in Kuwait, the United States is also considering sending more warships through international waters in the region. The size of the potential standby force has not been determined. There was no immediate confirmation of the Times report, which was based on interviews with unnamed military officials and diplomats.
U.S. military plans in the region have been under discussion for months, but the Times said the talks became more urgent when President Barack Obama announced that the last American troops would leave Iraq by the end of December. The Times said the U.S. government is seeking to increase existing military ties with all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.
Source
The Iraqi military wants us in Iraq. They stated themselves that their military would not be fully capable of protecting their ground and air space until approximately 2020. The people don't mind the protectors being outside the cities but are done with US patrols in the cities so long as we are there to respond to the threats that the corrupt police can not handle. Their corrupt leaders who by the way do not differ too much from our own want the US military out so that they have nobody to answer too when they begin hostile take overs turning it into a tribal war zone once again.
The Iraqi military wants us in Iraq. They stated themselves that their military would not be fully capable of protecting their ground and air space until approximately 2020. The people don't mind the protectors being outside the cities but are done with US patrols in the cities so long as we are there to respond to the threats that the corrupt police can not handle. Their corrupt leaders who by the way do not differ too much from our own want the US military out so that they have nobody to answer too when they begin hostile take overs turning it into a tribal war zone once again.
I can agree that the Iraq Military and certain parts of the Iraqi population probably want us to stay longer, (especially the Kurds), however we have spent about $1 trillion on Iraq so far, how much longer can we really afford to stay over there like that? plus I don't want any US Troops in Iraq if they can face trials in an Iraqi court room with no immunities.
The Iraqi military wants us in Iraq. They stated themselves that their military would not be fully capable of protecting their ground and air space until approximately 2020. The people don't mind the protectors being outside the cities but are done with US patrols in the cities so long as we are there to respond to the threats that the corrupt police can not handle. Their corrupt leaders who by the way do not differ too much from our own want the US military out so that they have nobody to answer too when they begin hostile take overs turning it into a tribal war zone once again.
I can agree that the Iraq Military and certain parts of the Iraqi population probably want us to stay longer, (especially the Kurds), however we have spent about $1 trillion on Iraq so far, how much longer can we really afford to stay over there like that? plus I don't want any US Troops in Iraq if they can face trials in an Iraqi court room with no immunities.
I agree with High-Gravity's sentiment. I think, in light of the lack of immunity, Obama is making the right call.
I think it might be the wrong thing, as far as what is best for iraq's future, but I would make the same call if I were President.
In the mean time I hear talk about a major base being kept in Kuwait. Just in case.........
US military's plans AFTER troop withdrawal from Iraq - Rediff.com News
In the mean time I hear talk about a major base being kept in Kuwait. Just in case.........
More than talk
In the mean time I hear talk about a major base being kept in Kuwait. Just in case.........
More than talk
So then, what's the real difference?
